I’ve been thinking a lot about the discussion thread on yesterday’s post, and a thought that surfaces again and again is that my politics are deeply entwined with my theology — so much so that sometimes I’m not sure which is guiding the ship (or steering the snake). I’d like to hear from you on this: How does your theology inform your politics, or vice versa, if at all? Are they separate issues for you, never the twain shall meet? If so, why? And how? If not, which one is the head and which the tail?
Advertisement
Filed under: politics, theology Tagged: | Ouroboros, politics, theology
Man, this is a tough one for me and I have struggled with it for close to 10 years. For a long time I was very fundamentalist in my views and I would toe the party line when it came to the politicking of religion (The Religious Right). Then some years back I began questioning this tactic. Biblically, I was struggling with justifying the use of Christ as a political tool. God is not a Republican or a Democrat and the game of politics definitely does not do justice to Christ’s message of love. Also my understanding of the Bible leads me to think that theocracy is not an expression of the message of Christ as well. That said, my beliefs do strongly influence how I vote and what is important to me, but that gets more and more difficult as both candidates display noble values as well as values that I cannot agree with.
I think it’s unwise to reason from religious belief to political belief, since the derived political belief is unpersuasive to anybody who doesn’t hold the religious belief. And since we have to do politics together, we need (at least in theory) to begin with premises that are shared.
Of course, it doesn’t hurt that these days I’m more or less an enhanced deist, so my religious premises are . . . minimal.
Also, steering the snake would be an excellent euphemism for . . . er . . . any kids reading this thing?
Doug – I wrote this post late last night and scheduled it to publish early this morning. It wasn’t until I reread “steering the snake” upon waking that I realized I had not chosen my metaphor wisely. At least not if I was shooting for a G-rating.
On topic: Do you think that your political beliefs have played a part in the evolution of your religious beliefs, or vice versa? What are your ideas for how more-religious people might better integrate or segregate their religious beliefs from their political positions and interactions?
“…since we have to do politics together, we need (at least in theory) to begin with premises that are shared.”
Doug – I agree, It’s unrealistic to expect someone to hold to a standard when they do not accept the authority of the standard. (i.e. – The Bible, Quran, etc.) But how do we decide shared premises when everything seems so relative in a post modern world? Absolutes seem more and more difficult to find.
Now I think about it, I suppose my religious beliefs do inform my political beliefs, but only inasmuch as I believe that personal and cultural reformation are necessary before politics can be improved.
As far as influencing each other, well, I think politics and religion have different purposes. Inasmuch as my religious beliefs say something true about community life outside of the Church, I suppose there’s some interaction, but I have pretty minimal views in that regard.
Steve – I’d start by asking “What is this for?” What is government for? There will not be consensus on any answer to this question, but it can be useful to identify areas of broad agreement. Once we know what we agree on, we can then restrict government to that. Which makes me happy, because I don’t think our society would agree on much.
For instance, I think if we asked the question “What is the US federal government for?” we’d only be able to agree on a few things, like:
1) preventing outside aggressors from harming the citizens and interest of the US
2) regulating transactions of property between the United States and other nations and between US states
3) adjudicating disputes between states and those arising in areas that are under exclusive federal jurisdiction
4) and so on.
In other words, we’d identify what the federal government *has* to do in order to be the federal government.
If that doesn’t work, I punch people in the face until they say they agree with me.
Percussive debate.I like how you think. :)
That’s a very clean way of looking at it. If I’m following you correctly, the people telling the government what it should be instead of government telling the people what it should be. I can get behind that.
Well, I don’t think any sane American politician would argue that the government should define its own role – Wilsonian politics died in this country for a reason. Everyone fancies him- or herself as speaking truth to power, even those whose truth would radically augment said power.
Aly, as a side note, what’s your editorial inclination on gendered language?
Aly, as a side note, what’s your editorial inclination on gendered language?
It depends (which is the answer to just about every editorial question). My personal preference is to change up gendered pronouns when I’m talking about generic people, i.e., “A good editor could whup your ass if she had the inclination” followed by “and a good lawyer, if his fees are reasonable, could sue on your behalf.” Defaulting to male pronouns just feels a bit lazy to me; there’s no need for it, ya know?
Pronouns for God are a bit trickier. Even though I take issue with the overabundance of “He” in theological discourse, there’s not a terrific alternative that isn’t grossly distracting. I usually default to male for expedience’s sake.
I think Dishwalla (“Tell me all your thoughts on God, cause I’d really like to meet her”) and Tori Amos (“God sometimes you just don’t come thru, do you need a woman to look after you?”) should host /clarify the discussion on God’s gender.
Dishwalla maketh all things clear.
What if God was one of us?
Well, if you looked at my desk right now, you would see a slob like one of us.