Monday, February 26, 2007
Fisking The Christian Left
I wish I had the patience to write posts like this at Kruse Kronicle. In it, Michael illustrates two really important points.
One is the use of proof-texting, and particularly as it applies to political arguments on issues in which religion might have a voice. He rightly points out that this is prevalent on both sides of politics, although in the piece, he is specifically addressing some egregious examples from the left.
The second point is related and that is the use of proper hermeneutics when examining scripture. More than simple context, we need to research well to determine the original authors precise intent.
What is most interesting to me; however, is how none of the poorly used scriptural citations he discusses are directly related to the issue at hand; there may be a peripheral correlation, but it is not like the Bible has specific instructions on the matter.
One of the things that becomes apparent when you consider that fact is that as Christians we need to devise a set of principles and guidelines that aid us in making decisions about specific circumstances. This is a bit beyond a worldview and extends to the realm of ethics.
Now let's bring this back to politics. To be effective politically in a religiously diverse United States two things become apparent when you arrive at that set of principles and guidlines. The first is that you have to find a way to defend them in the public sphere apart from quoting scripture or other divine resources. Many in the public sphere will not share your view of the divinity of the resource you cite and your argument will simply fall flat.
But another apparent fact is that either your faith and its set of principles and guidlines must have a clear majority (not true in this nation at this time) or you must make common cause with people of other religious persuasions, or non-divine ideologies, whose set of principles and guidelines are reasonably close to yours.
He with the most votes wins, it's that simple. That means with have to work with people in political areas that we might not work with in other areas. Which brings me to the final point I want to make in this post. Politics is not life. We live in a nation of limited (though increasingly less so) government. Making common political cause with someone or some group does not, by any stretch of the imagination, mean you endorse, agree with, condone, or otherwise uphold all aspects of that person or groups life.
Most of us as Christians are poltiical conservatives. Limited government is a bedrock of being conservative. If we grant too much importance to politics, the kind of importance we ascribe to it when we demand certain religious affliation of a candidate or party, we ascribe to the liberal idea of expanding and large government. We divorce ourselves from our own fundamental principles.
Related Tags: religion, politics, hermeneutics, proof-texting, principles
One is the use of proof-texting, and particularly as it applies to political arguments on issues in which religion might have a voice. He rightly points out that this is prevalent on both sides of politics, although in the piece, he is specifically addressing some egregious examples from the left.
The second point is related and that is the use of proper hermeneutics when examining scripture. More than simple context, we need to research well to determine the original authors precise intent.
What is most interesting to me; however, is how none of the poorly used scriptural citations he discusses are directly related to the issue at hand; there may be a peripheral correlation, but it is not like the Bible has specific instructions on the matter.
One of the things that becomes apparent when you consider that fact is that as Christians we need to devise a set of principles and guidelines that aid us in making decisions about specific circumstances. This is a bit beyond a worldview and extends to the realm of ethics.
Now let's bring this back to politics. To be effective politically in a religiously diverse United States two things become apparent when you arrive at that set of principles and guidlines. The first is that you have to find a way to defend them in the public sphere apart from quoting scripture or other divine resources. Many in the public sphere will not share your view of the divinity of the resource you cite and your argument will simply fall flat.
But another apparent fact is that either your faith and its set of principles and guidlines must have a clear majority (not true in this nation at this time) or you must make common cause with people of other religious persuasions, or non-divine ideologies, whose set of principles and guidelines are reasonably close to yours.
He with the most votes wins, it's that simple. That means with have to work with people in political areas that we might not work with in other areas. Which brings me to the final point I want to make in this post. Politics is not life. We live in a nation of limited (though increasingly less so) government. Making common political cause with someone or some group does not, by any stretch of the imagination, mean you endorse, agree with, condone, or otherwise uphold all aspects of that person or groups life.
Most of us as Christians are poltiical conservatives. Limited government is a bedrock of being conservative. If we grant too much importance to politics, the kind of importance we ascribe to it when we demand certain religious affliation of a candidate or party, we ascribe to the liberal idea of expanding and large government. We divorce ourselves from our own fundamental principles.
Related Tags: religion, politics, hermeneutics, proof-texting, principles
