The post on understanding the range of political expression brought several interesting replies. I call them interesting because they actually help to demonstrate the different, and very strong, opinions in the Christian camp. It will actually help in the discussion. I will not name names, however, one is an Orthodox monk, one is an Orthodox priest, and the third’s Christian identity I do not know. All three are people who take seriously their commitment to follow the Lord and to obey Him. So, let’s see how they handled certain political opinions. The first one:
It has been my personal principle to never cast a vote for any political candidate that is pro-abortion, pro-homosexual agenda, etc, no matter how strongly I may agree with the rest of their platform.
What I find to be very sad are those Christians who compromise their moral principles for their particular ideology. We saw it happen in the last presidential election. Many good Roman Catholics simply disobeyed their hierarchy and voted for an admitted pro-abortion candidate. I fear for those who can justify making such compromises.
Now here is the second one:
We often must differentiate between what a candidate says and what a candidate is likely to do. (cf. Matthew 21:28-32) Have the Republicans outlawed abortion? No. A big reason for that is that many in the party really don’t want to, some openly, such as Rudy Gulliani, and others furtively. The elder George Bush, for example, was a major patron of Planned Parenthood prior to running for Vice President with Reagan. Mitt Romney was “pro-choice” while Governor of Massachusetts. However, it makes a great election issue, so it gets trotted out at election time (often along with, ironically, “gun rights”). Obama and the Dems, OTOH, who are not going to outlaw abortion, support policies which will objectively have the effect of lowering the numbers of abortions actually performed.
And, here is the third one:
The Republicans know that if they finally could manage to do something about abortion they would lose that vital wedge that they have against the Democrats. They would lose that enormous pro-life bloc of voters who currently have nowhere else to go but the Republican party. And so they are going to continue talking about it while doing nothing.
Now, before you react, please read their arguments very very carefully. Try to read them with a fresh eye and see why committed Christians could disagree. I am not trying to change your mind on your political beliefs. But, I am trying to stop you from inappropriately judging your fellow Christian. Before I make any comments, let me quote you a parable from the Gospels. Frankly, as I read the arguments above, I thought of this parable by Jesus.
The Parable of the Two Sons
“But what do you think? A man had two sons, and he came to the first and said, ‘Son, go, work today in my vineyard.’ He answered and said, ‘I will not,’ but afterward he regretted it and went. Then he came to the second and said likewise. And he answered and said, ‘I go, sir,’ but he did not go. Which of the two did the will of his father?”
They said to Him, “The first.”
Jesus said to them, “Assuredly, I say to you that tax collectors and harlots enter the kingdom of God before you. For John came to you in the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him; but tax collectors and harlots believed him; and when you saw it, you did not afterward relent and believe him.
Let me carefully state that I cannot guarantee that the parable above applies to the current political situation. But, notice that the political argument and counter-argument have some parallels to this parable. One side is arguing that a Christian cannot support anyone who is pro-abortion, regardless of the circumstances. It further goes on to claim a disobedience to the directives of the Church if one has supported the Democrats. The other side is arguing that the Republicans are like the second son who said he would do the Father’s will but never fulfilled his commitment. The argument goes on to say that the actual policies of the Democrats will lead to a reduction in the number of abortions in real life, so that, in effect, the Democrats are like the first son who says the wrong thing, but does the right thing.
Here is the important point to notice. The side that conditionally supports the Democrats makes one very important caveat. It is an implied caveat, but it is there nonetheless. The implied caveat is that were there to be a party who actually fought effectively against abortion, then it would very probably be a Christian’s duty to support that party. So, in one sense, both sides agree on that point. The two sides are not as far apart as it might seem. The difference seems to be on whether to believe that the first son or the second son is the one who will actually do most for the Kingdom.
But, let me give you one warning as you make your choices. The parable also warns us that one son can appear to be righteous while actually being disobedient. The other son can appear to be disobedient while actually ending up doing the work of the Kingdom. So, be very careful when you judge your fellow Christian for their political choice. Why do I say that? Well, it is not entirely clear which is the first son and which is the second son. Worse, in this case both parties may actually be seriously hindering the work of the Kingdom of God. So, be very cautious when you tell your fellow Christian that they disobey God if they vote a certain way.
Amen!
In the present political climate in the United States, it is difficult to actually sort out who will, who won’t, who says they will but don’t or who said they wouldn’t but did. There is so much rhetoric on both sides and so much mud slinging, so much exaggeration and name calling that an “outsider” has not got much of a chance to actually sort it all out. The truth is that the inside the beltway mentality is very different from the mentality of the heartland that folks who do their business inside said beltway have very skewed views of what the American public really wants, needs, desires that it is a wonder to me that anything at all gets done. The best I can do with my vote is to measure the candidate aided by the Holy Spirit and pray. I’ve been doing a lot of said praying lately!!
Alix
Fr. Ernesto,
One thing I believe about the deceitfulness of sin is that it often sets itself up against itself and begs us to take sides. There are so many issues and problems we face that it is impossible to propose solutions as an either/or choice.
Yes, both parties may be the devil. GRIN. Frankly, that is ever so much more likely than that God wants us to only support one of them.
There’s the joke (over at Totem to Temple) that a LOT of Evangelical Christians’ attitude is that “GOP” stands for “God’s Only Party”.
And this makes the Christians as much the prison bitch of Republican machines as blacks are the prison ho of Democrat machines — they’ll vote for The Party automatically because they have nowhere else to go, and since they ALWAYS vote that way, their chosen Party doesn’t need to do anything for them (“Why should we? They’ll vote for us no matter what!”) and the other Party writes them off (“Why bother? They’ll vote against us no matter what we do for them.”)
Top it off that we are now at a point in our political/social cycle where an Idealist Generation (the Baby Boomers) is dominant, with the resulting Messiah Politics and a large dose of Conspiracy Theory thrown in. To an Idealist, the Ideal can justify any means to bring it about. Like the ancestral French Revolution, with its Republique of Perfect Virtue always beckoning seductively from the other side of the “regrettable but necessary” Reign of Terror.
[HUG says] ” — they’ll vote for The Party automatically because they have nowhere else to go, and since they ALWAYS vote that way, their chosen Party doesn’t need to do anything for them (“Why should we? They’ll vote for us no matter what!”) and the other Party writes them off (“Why bother? They’ll vote against us no matter what we do for them.”)”
If I remember the numbers correctly, just before the last presidential election, 40% of US voters considered themselves evangelical Christians or religious conservatives. Out of that 40%, 70% of them said they would cast their vote for the pro-life candidate. Doing the math, 40 X 70 = 28% of the US vote going automatically to the party or candidate who will say they are pro-life.
Do they deserve that 28%? How have they earned it? In 37 years, what have they done besides “take the pledge” in order to get those votes?
Father Ernesto, the analogy of the two sons is a good one. Thanks for that.
I’m the guy with the third opinion, echoing the second. If I sounded cynical it’s because I really believe that the Republicans are deliberately unproductive about alleviating the abortion problem. And in that case the cynicism belongs to the Republicans.
I understand and appreciate the person with the first opinion. Many of my friends, and also family members, share that view. They can’t understand how I could vote for a Democrat; and their vote will always reflect their conscience, especially in regard to abortion. The abortion matter has also shaped my voting opinion (Reagan, twice) but in recent years I’ve taken a closer look at another pro-life matter, namely pre-emptive war.
Although abortion remains an important topic, it doesn’t appear to be going anywhere after 37 years, and certainly not with any help from Republicans. War, however, seems to have become the true business of a Republican president, and war too is killing babies. To make matters more cynical, war is being presented to us as something Godly.
Rather than Godly, the recent call to arms is idolatry. The hypocrisy, deceit, manipulation, and coercion designed to get us and our allies into unjust wars is no longer something I can vote for.
The ultimate cynicism comes from a party or a candidate that accepts the mantle of God (as proclaimed by my fellow evangelicals and other Christians) and then with the authority of that mantle drops bombs on civilians without our country having been attacked. Allowing God’s name and reputation to be trashed in this manner violates the third commandment.
Afghanistan may have been a correct decision following 9/11, but certainly not Iraq, and not Iraq twice. Nor the tortures at Abu Graib. Nor illegal detentions at Guantanamo. Shame on us.
And further, as to the Republicans being the party of pro-life: I live in Maine. Both of my senators, Snowe and Collins, are Republicans and both are pro-choice. It’s not hard around here to vote Democrat or independent.
I encourage those who vote their conscience on the abortion matter to continue doing so. But please study the other issues too, and if you still don’t agree with us, fine. But please at least understand why we no longer march to the Republican drum.
By the way, the jury is still out on Obama. I’ll drop him like I dropped the Bushes if he thinks war is the answer. And it may indeed be abortion that tips the balance.
Thank You, Father Ernesto, for your excellent and spiritual thoughts. I am not a political “party” loyalist. I am a Kingdom of God loyalist. I think it is necessary we not put so much credibility on what a political candidate (or anyone else for that matter) SAYS but more on what they DO. If the case was so simple as one saying he/she is anti-abortion but their career voting record demonstrates they voted otherwise and if another says ‘I support a woman’s right to have an abortion’ but their career voting record demonstrates they voted against abortion, then the choice would be clear. However, this is just not the case. Most commonly those who say they are anti-abortion end up doing nothing but those who say they are pro-abortion also vote that way if/when circumstances arise. This can be shown statistically by looking at how congressional representatives and senators voted on various pieces of legislation. The question, to my mind, is, if it is a choice between one who says they are anti-abortion but their record shows no significant action in that regard and another who says they are pro-abortion and their record shows that – which is the lesser of two evils? Party has no play here, or at least, I don’t believe it should. And alongside the question of which one is more likely to do more for the Kingdom should be the question of which one has the most potential of actually doing damage to the Kingdom should he/she be handed the keys of political authority. As I said, I care nothing for ‘party’. I look to which one whose pro-life record is consistent with what they say. I do not mean to criticize anyone but for a Christian to elect someone whose public record and testimony demonstrates an anti-life position on more than one issue while predicting, supposing, hoping that none of these issues will come up during the candidates tenure in office is ideological thinking, not rational thinking. It is a form of self-delusion. And delusion is not the exclusive property of either the left or the right. All of it is vanity and illness and the only cure is repentance.