Religion in Politics

I suppose it is a strange idea, but tonight’s post is a review of a review. A colleague, Dr. Robert Jensen, recently wrote a review, “Prophetic politics: Charting a healthy role for religion in public life,” which is a review of Walter Brueggemann, The Practice of Prophetic Imagination: Preaching an Emancipatory Word (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2012). My comments will make a lot more sense if you can take the time to read Bob’s article.

The first thing that surprised me was the extent to which Bob and I actually agreed. He and I come from very different political perspectives, and somewhat different views of Christianity, and have had a rough patch or two, largely due to my mouth more than his, I’m ashamed to say. His graciousness went a long way towards smoothing things out. So this convergence was a very pleasant surprise.

I thought one critical point that was missed, possibly also by Brueggemann, is that polemics often trumps the "first principles" that one's faith might otherwise inform a voter. I'll offer two examples, one each from traditional liberal and conservative platforms.

Intellectual Crisis

Only someone returning from a Vanwinklian nap would not be aware of the incredible and brittle factiousness permeating our culture. Nearly everyone you talk to will shake their head with sorrow at the cracks throughout Western society, and then just as quick point to this or that group as the ones primarily responsible. In a NYTimes review of a new book, The Anointed, the divisive debates roiling in Christendom are brought to fore from the apparent perspective of someone from a more secular worldview to an audience largely outside of the Christian worldview.

The review describes much of the intellectual conflict in evangelicalism, particularly in the States. Old earth versus theistic evolution, whether the Founders were Christian or Deist (or pre-Darwinian humanists, as some now affirm, with credible arguments), the relative value of academic credentials versus a strictly common-sense/sola scriptura based faith are some of the issues, even asking the fundamental and completely academic question of whether or not the Enlightenment was a good thing.

Malaise

A cartoon from some magazine sometime back showed a classroom. On the chalkboard were two words, “ignorance” and “apathy.” Two stoners are in the back row and one looks up at the board with great effort, and with further strain reads the words slowly aloud, and asks his buddy, “what do those words mean?” His friend doesn’t even bother to look up when mumbling, “I dunno and don’t care.”

Malaise is just a cool sounding word, but if you have it, it’s hard to be excited about it.

Dad and I were talking tonight about how agitated so many Christians are about the state of our nation and all up in arms in Tea Party rallies and the like, yet, there are churches protesting “The Response” time of worship and prayer, and the stadium at best looks like it will be 20% full.

The Things We Can't Talk About

“For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.”

I Corinthians 13:12

Have you ever thought about how, even though we live in a free country, there are many things that we just can’t talk about?

I’m not just talking about “religion and politics” or politically correct speech, though those are certainly a large part of it. There are many things that we cannot or should not reveal about ourselves or discuss with others.

Some health ailments, we are taught, have taboos associated with them, so don’t discuss them, even if you are concerned about the health of someone who obviously has one. Are you considering looking for a new job? Better keep quiet or be very careful. Family history should be “kept in the family.” Trade secrets are just that, secret. And so on.

HWJV: How Would Jesus Vote?

At grave risk of breaking my rule to be apartisan in this blog, I feel compelled to comment on the issue of Christians in politics.

Growing up in Texas, at least post-Reagan, it has been commonly viewed among evangelicals here that you can’t be a Christian and Democrat or a Christian and politically liberal. I had a roommate in grad school who grew up in Pennsylvania believing you couldn’t be a Christian and a Republican. Obviously, what we have here is the heart of Christian unity.

Ahh, Those Freshmen

Satire is a dying art form. Not because there are few who can do it, but because there are fewer and fewer who can recognize and appreciate it. I feel it is part of my responsibility to challenge my students to think critically, and not just in my field (chemistry), but to apply those skills also to other areas. Therefore, with this in mind, I try to bring current events and outside things into class, usually at the beginning, and apply it in some way to chemistry, or vice versa. Thus, the day after Saddam was convicted, I brought it up at the beginning of class, saying I was glad he’d been convicted, and explained that I had been a civilian technical contractor in Baghdad when he’d been caught. I opened the floor of the class for a few minutes to any questions about the situation and about my personal experience over there, and I felt it was reasonably productive and informative for them.

So, the day after the 2006 Congressional Elections and the turn over of the House and Senate to the Democrats, I had an inspiration. I announced the following to my 275 freshmen in General Chemistry:

“In honor of the election results yesterday, I am considering a major policy shift in this class. I am considering proposing grade reform, in the form of GPA welfare. If, at the end of the semester, you are making an ‘A’ in this course, you will ‘donate’ 7 points to the class. If you have a ‘B’, it will be 5 points, a ‘C+’, 3 points. Then, everyone making ‘D’s’ or ‘F’s’ will automatically receive a ‘C.’ If there are surplus points, I will retain them as administrative overhead, but if there are too few points, we will engage in deficit point spending. Of course, if I really wanted to be fair, I would eliminate all tests and homeworks, and just give everyone a ‘C.’ Chemistry learning would decrease, but everyone would feel better about it. How does that sound?”

During my spiel, the class as a whole were laughing and cheering, so I thought they were with me, and upon my final question, they erupted in support. Beginning to be concerned, I then asked, “Ok, those of you currently making ‘As’ and ‘Bs’, how does this sound?” Of course, they, a smaller fraction of the class, were strongly against the proposition. I then made a couple of comments that I thought strengthened the idea that I was not being serious.

After class, as normal, a group of students clustered around to ask some questions. One asked about a grading issue regarding the final, a normal reasonable question (although a month early). The guy behind him chimed in with, “So we are still guaranteed a ‘C’ even if we are failing?” I laughed and said, “Of course not.” The disappointment on his face was real, and at least one other person behind him sighed/groaned with disappointment.

SO, on the next class day, I made a statement of clarification. I introduced it with a definition of satire. I then explained that this is how welfare and other entitlement programs actually work, and this is how the income tax system is based. It may not be general chemistry, but some things are more important than molecules. And the sooner they understand how the real world works, the better for them. Then I moved on to the different kinds of solids that exist and why they have the structures they do as a result of their chemical and physical properties.

SDG