A Christian Living Out His Faith

Some people get so wrapped up in the phrase “separation of church and state” that they think it means Christians have to leave their faith at home if they are elected to public office. This is especially true of those who mistakenly think the phrase is in the Constitution instead of in a letter from Thomas Jefferson to Baptists in Danbury, Connecticut.

Others think all politicians get caught up in going along to get along so they can’t ever exhibit moral integrity. It’s instructive then to see that Paul Ryan, the newly introduced running mate for Mitt Romney, spoke at Georgetown University (a Catholic school) about how his Catholic faith informs his policy formation.

It’s worth reading the whole speech at this site. When I read it, I saw a great summary of this very complicated topic. These four subjects in that speech are worth exploring to see how faith can be implemented: (the quotes are from Paul Ryan’s speech)

Social Doctrine—“The work I do as a Catholic holding office conforms to the social doctrine as best I can make of it. What I have to say about the social doctrine of the Church is from the viewpoint of a Catholic in politics applying my understanding to the problems of the day.”

Solidarity—“Serious problems like those we face today require charitable conversation. Civil pubic dialogue goes to the heart of solidarity, the virtue that does not divide society into classes and groups but builds up the common good of all.”

Subsidiarity—This is the concept that those entities closest to the problem know it best and are best able to address it. So, families, friends, neighbors, cities, counties, and states should take care of issues first before relying on the national government to get involved. “Government is one word for things we do together. But it is not the only word. We are a nation that prides itself on looking out for one another—and government has an important role to play in that. But relying on distant government bureaucracies to lead this effort just hasn’t worked.”

Preferential option for the poor—It is a moral choice to prioritize resources so that the poor can have a necessary safety net. However, “…I do not believe that the preferential option for the poor means a preferential option for big government.”

Ryan goes on to talk about poverty, taxes, Medicare, and affordable health care. These are all subjects that demand civil dialogue and respect for differing opinions. That civil dialogue will lead to solidarity in working to effect true social justice.

I’m with Ryan. I believe it is not only possible, but the most moral choice for Christians to put their faith into practice in the public square.

“Portraits of Faith” Forum Series

A couple of months ago I was asked if I would be interested in leading a “Summer Forum” study on Hebrews 11 with a fellow member, David Beaty. The tentative title was “Portraits of Faith”. It turned out to be a 5-week study, so it expanded a bit over what I had originally thought it would be.

Dave and I started meeting weekly, and over the past 10 weeks we have had a blast getting to know each other and discussing what we would do in the forums.

The study, and my relationship with Dave Beaty, has taken me to places I haven’t visited in a while. The concept of faith as trust, obedience, believing something, being trustworthy and faithful, and holding onto “the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints” (Jude 1:3 NIV) challenges me to examine and reaffirm my own faith.

It’s not enough to study about faith and to teach about faith. The teacher, as well as his students, must have faith himself. Hebrews 11:6 says it clearly, “And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.”

The basic meaning of “Faith” is trust—a sense of confidence in another that allows a relationship between the two parties to exist and to continue. It’s what keeps a marriage together, what develops a sense of unity to develop in an army unit or sports team, what enables those in a society to live with each other in harmony, and what keeps order in a democracy—the trust that citizens have in their leaders. It’s opposite, distrust, is of course what causes anarchy, wars, a breakdown of unit cohesiveness, and divorce.

Our faith in God, then, is more than just believing that He exists. It is a relationship with God in which we trust His promises, rely on His presence, and have confidence that He will lead us and enable us to carry out what He asks us to do—be His witnesses and ambassadors in the world to bring others into His kingdom. For Christians, “…faith is primarily the relationship we have with God through what Jesus accomplished in His death and resurrection.” (William L. Self, Holman Bible Dictionary).

It is that relationship I hope to foster in myself and the students through this study.

Being Christian In A Political Debate

I have written previously here and elsewhere about the health care (or health insurance) reform issue. I learned firsthand that stating an opinion in public can encourage debate, but it can also bring out the worst in people.

In a recent ScriptoriumDaily.com post, “7 Suggestions for Christians in the Public Square” John Mark Reynolds wrote “It is hard to talk to someone when you have nothing in common.”

Sometimes it is even hard, but not impossible, to talk with someone when you share some common values because of “how we prioritize values when good come into conflict.” We may “agree on the values”, but prioritize and apply them differently.

A few years back I encountered some faithful Christians with some doctrines that were radically different from mine. I was startled to conclude that they actually believe these things they are saying, but I respected them personally and I realized I needed to continue to relate to them as fellow believers. Sadly, some of them did not reach the same conclusion.

The same thing can happen with the health care debate. That brings us to one of Reynold’s suggestions: "Attacking ideas is different than attacking people". In response to one email about health care I sent which went viral, one person (who admitted that she didn’t know me) named me personally as a “Deather”. She was referring to those who seek disclosure of Barak Obama’s birth certificate and are called “Birthers” (but she didn’t refer to the “Truthers” –9/11 Conspiracy Theorists). Instead of debating the ideas presented, she attacked me.

Reynolds is right though in his 2nd suggestion: “Strong opinions encourage authentic dialogue.” It is only as people with strong convictions speak up and engage in civil debate with others of strong convictions that authentic dialogue takes place. If you strongly disagree with a policy or an idea but say nothing when others present their opinions, there is no dialogue. The recent town hall meetings may have been boisterous (and some participants may have gone over the line at times), but they had the desired effect of getting both sides of the issue before the public and their elected officials.

I encourage you to read the entire article 7 Suggestions for Christians in the Public Square.

In a previous post, John Mark Reynolds quoted Jim Wallis’ comment that health care is a “deeply theological issue, a Biblical issue and a moral issue”, and then replied that “Health care is such a deeply theological, Biblical, and moral issue that it cannot be trusted to the government.

Increasing government control over health care increases the number of ethical issues where government authority will have to be on one side or the other of these disputes.

Sometimes increasing state power is necessary, but it should also be done with care. When religious leaders like Jim Wallis pretend that it is obvious that government should increase its involvement in health care, they have confused the goal (universal basic care) with the means (government programs).”

Again, I encourage you to read the entire article: Too Great a Good for Caesar: Health Care Reform .

There are some health care issues that involve ethical decisions that cannot be entrusted to politicians or bureaucrats whose decisions are politically, not morally, based.

Christians have a responsibility to speak up about moral and ethical issues and not abdicate that responsibility to others. However, we must also be Christian in the manner in which we debate. I applaud John Mark Reynolds for his helpful suggestions as to how that debate can be Christian in tone and manner.

The Irony of Elastic Theology and Inclusiveness

In "The Upper Crust of Progressive Episcopalians", by George Will is this key insight:

“The Episcopal Church once was America's upper crust at prayer. Today it is "progressive" politics cloaked -- very thinly -- in piety. Episcopalians' discontents tell a cautionary tale for political as well as religious associations. As the church's doctrines have become more elastic, the church has contracted. It celebrates an "inclusiveness" that includes fewer and fewer members.”

It seems people want to belong to a church or organization that actually stands for something rather than for the acceptance of "whatever". When there is no distinction between the church and the culture, what appeal does the church have? Why bother to attend church? Or, as in George Will's column, why bother to stay connected to that church when you can become part of one that helps you become better than the culture?

A Word from our Catholic Brothers and Sisters

An amazing video from CatholicVote.com--Powerful!