This post is in response to a discussion I am grateful to be able to engage in with a number of Christian friends of mine who openly supported Obama. I finally received some very thought-provoking answers to a question I have long been asking without answers. I wish we could have shared these discussions more openly before the election, yet I am still thankful we are discussing at all and peacefully.
Know that this is written to a number of Christian friends, with the basic assumption that we all agree on the fundamentals of Christianity. You may find yourself taking issue with some of the assumptions we make, for which I don’t question. But I do want you to be aware of what context you are reading.
This note is not a point/counterpoint to each and every issue of the recent election, as I believe we’ve all been through enough to avoid wanting to do it again for at least another lifetime. Rather, it is in response to the answers I received to my question: How can a Christian support Obama? Here goes…
Putting campaigning talking points behind us, the overall theme I feel must be mentioned is the fundamental misunderstanding of the core purpose of government. In a capitalist society, the purpose of government is to “protect rights. … A proper government’s only responsibility is to protect the rights of the individual by banning the initiation of force, thus making all relations between men peaceful, i.e., free from the threat of violence and fraud.” (Capitalism.org) I see this playing out threefold: 1) Maintaining safety for its citizens (military, police force, fire departments, etc.); 2) Infrastructure (roads, water, electricity, etc.); and 3) public education (schools, universities, etc.). In a variety of forms, these three provisions support the promises in our Declaration of Independence – life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
One friend, a youth pastor, outlined the beliefs of Obama's denomination, the United Church of Christ, none of which I question (although, I do believe Revered Wright is in serious disagreement with the tenets of any Christian organization, and Obama’s 20-year connection with such a pastor troubling). According to this friend, they are: "UCC believes in Jesus Christ and God who created the world; honors the Bible as holy and foundational for faith; proclaims that God is still at work in the world; connects faith and reason together (heart, soul, and mind); focuses more on feeding the hungry than "saving" them but welcomes new Christians of all ages." I believe Christian churches – Protestant or Catholic – should at the very least bear these fundamentals truths at their core.
However, our nation was established to separate church and state. (To clarify, I mean separation of church and state as in the freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. I’m talking about the “good” kind of separation, in that the government would not impose beliefs on its people, but would also not stifle the beliefs of others; as opposed to the “bad” kind of separation like removing “under God” from the Pledge and Ten Commandments from public squares, etc.). Another friend shared with me, “My heart breaks when I see people in need, without access to health care and senior citizens struggling to pay for medications on the pittance they get from Social Security. And I can't let my heart break without wanting to help. That's what Jesus would do – take care of our fellow man. Could churches fill that role instead of government? Sure, but they don't.”
I couldn’t agree with her more, and THIS is entirely why I pose my question at all. Could churches fill that role instead of government? More importantly, the churches should and MUST fill that role instead of government. Another pastoral friend mentioned Obama’s DNC speech four years ago sharing his concern for those in need, and I agree, this is one of the most Christian statements delivered by a politician. While I admire Obama’s personal dedication to feeding the hungry and caring for our nation’s underprivileged, repressed and poor, THIS IS NOT THE GOVERNMENT’S JOB.
As devoted Christians, we need not be reminded of Matthew 25: 35-40: “For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me, naked and you clothed me, ill and you cared for me, in prison and you visited me. Then the righteous will answer him and say, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? When did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? When did we see you ill or in prison and visit you?’ And the kill will say to them in reply, ‘Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.’”
This is what our Lord calls us to do, yet Christians and our churches have failed miserably at meeting this immense disparity in our society – shameful in a country as affluent as ours. Helen Keller echoed similarly, “Until the great mass of the people shall be filled with the sense of responsibility for each other's welfare, social justice can never be attained.” (hki.org)
I encourage you to read entirely a powerful article by Rick Barry where he defines the concept of social justice, a popular catch phrase amongst Christians. (http://www.ajustsociety.org/press/forum.asp?nav=publications&cjsForumID=1105) He explains that most liberals feel the government is responsible for social justice efforts simply because it is the only organization with enough power (not resources) to rearrange society. He suggests that individuals alone can do little more than demand our government fixes our society, whereas citizens are exempt from society. (ajustsociety.org)
Newt Gingrich supports this suggestion by stating: “If ‘society’ is responsible for everything, then no one is personally responsible for anything.... Without personal responsibility there cannot be freedom. It is just that simple.” (scu.edu)
I believe many agents of change, Martin Luther King, Jr., Rosa Parks, Abraham Lincoln, to name a few, might suggest otherwise. In fact, I believe they are all turning in their graves as they watch their entire country empower their government to do what they fought so hard for our country’s people to achieve independently.
Still quoting from Barry’s article: “Friedrich Hayek, a famous libertarian economist, became convinced that social justice was an illusion. He said, ‘To discover the meaning of what is called ‘social justice’ has been one of my chief preoccupations for more than 10 years. I have failed in this endeavor – or rather, have reached the conclusion that, with reference to society of free men, the phrase has no meaning whatever.’ In fact, Hayek went so far as to say, ‘I am certain that nothing has done so much to destroy the juridical safeguards of individual freedom as the striving after this mirage of social justice.’”
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are … Liberty.” (Declaration of Independence) The right to liberty is the right to individual freedom – the freedom to thrive AND the freedom to fail.
Our last self-evident, unalienable right is that of happiness – the most ambiguous of them all. What is happiness? Food? Shelter? Wealth? Status? For everyone, the answer is different. I will assume you are familiar with Abraham Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, which neatly packages a human’s progression of needs into pyramid format. (Valdosta State University). I encourage you to read an article by Joseph Westfall discussing the arguments for and against social welfare: http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v8n3/welfare.html.
Westfall asks some important questions: “Is society responsible for the well-being of the poor? If so, at what cost to the rest of the community? Are the poor to be held in any way responsible for themselves? How far must poverty go before society is morally bound to act?” One of Westfall’s most powerful points, in my opinion is: “Many people see this as the role of a just society: to provide its members with their basic needs. Yet many others find taxing productive workers to subsidize the less productive tantamount to theft. They argue that people are free to provide for themselves and should be held responsible for their actions if they do not.”
Larger government with more public assistance does not eliminate our society’s problems. The solution is in you, in me, in the strength of our families, our churches, our ministries, our outreach, our education and development of those less fortunate than us. As always, the answer is in Christ, and our answer to His call to be our brothers’ and sisters’ keepers.
Yes, I believe Obama is particularly catastrophic based on his radically pro-abortion views. A core assumption of public leaders is that they will serve the citizens – not kill them. When a leader, now the new leader of our entire nation, admits freely that he doesn’t know when life begins (whether to dodge a tough question or attempt to reach out to a less liberal base, and furthermore fervently supports the termination of life) we should be terrified. If he holds the belief to terminate a child before he/she is even born, then we know his veto power on human rights is entirely unfettered. Back to our Declaration of Independence, this undermines our first unalienable right: LIFE.
I would never doubt Obama’s Christianity or faith – that is between him and God. However, I do question his judgment, especially now as leader of the free world. His bold defending of abortion does make me question if he truly is serving our “Christian ideals.” He may be your kind of Christian, but unfortunately, as his historically-proven belief on this issue demonstrates, he is not God’s. To continue, “…All experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, … it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new guards for their future security.” Have we not a responsibility to our unborn citizens to “provide new guards for their future security,” if not their existence entirely?
As for my/our specific Catholic beliefs, there are two resources in particular I invite you to review. First, Fr. Frank Pavone explains here http://www.priestsforlife.org/elections/grave-mistake.htm why Obama is a problematic presidential elective, and specifically a “grave mistake.” To further understand why Catholics believe and vote as they do, see: http://www.priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bishops/fcstatement.pdf, the official “Call to Political Responsibility from the Catholic Bishops of the United States.” It explains our Catholic responsibilities as American citizens far better than I could ever articulate.
Lastly, after seeing a significant shift in the mindset, moral prioritization and political application on the part of Evangelicals of our generation, it is disconcerting that those who voted for a radical, left-wing politician may remain allegiant to the seemingly Christian ideals of other Democrat candidates like Obama. Catholics, by belief, must remain committed to the pro-life candidate, who is traditionally Republican (although, as unlikely as it may be, a pro-life Democrat could certainly be supported by Catholics). My fear is that we may suddenly find Protestants voting against Catholics (and vice versa), divided and warring against one another, when our primary mission is to be UNITED developers of God's kingdom. Again, our country’s principles were founded on the value of a separation of church and state, which I am eager to once again return.
While I understand how I may not convert anyone to become a Republican, I encourage you to read why we are in a blog entry I wrote long before this election process, and long before McCain was even a candidate (http://blogotorium.blogspot.com/search?q=why+the+elephant). I must clarify that Dennis and I were never heavily invested in McCain/Palin, but rather Catholic Christians first, Republicans second, who found no justifiable way to vote for Obama. Thus, why I’ve been asking my initial question all along: a struggle to find such a justifiable notion.
In conclusion, this is why I struggle with Christians who support(ed) Obama. While he is certainly a notable leader, there is voluminous and clear evidence, research and Biblical support for why he is fundamentally not suitable for the role of the President of the United States.
What I initially intended to be a succinct reply has since snowballed into this short dissertation, for which I apologize. But I hope you sense my passion and concern for the health, well-being and stability of both our country and Christian faith. I do not intend to ensue a heated debate, but I believe both sides have a responsibility to defend our beliefs, as I believe we all have. I heard a dreadful, yet poignant cliché that applies: Our nation’s eagle has two wings, a right and a left, and it needs both to soar. I pray they work in practical unison over the next four years.
Peace and God’s blessings to you all,
Rebecca, Becky, Bex, etc.
P.S. You may also be interested in Dennis’ response to this issue at: http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=32926893220
SOURCES:[I realize my references are all over the place in consistency, but I’m (hopefully) not getting graded on this “paper,” and trust you will forgive my informality!]
Capitalism.org, “Government's job is to protect (individual) rights.” http://www.capitalism.org/faq/government.htm
Center for a Just Society, “What is Social Justice: Posing the Question,” by Rick Barry, http://www.ajustsociety.org/press/forum.asp?nav=publications&cjsForumID=1105
Declaration of Independence, http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html
Helen Keller International, http://www.hki.org/
New American Bible, Matthew 25: 35-40, http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew25.htm
Santa Clara University, Markkula Center for Applied Ethics, “The Welfare of the Community,” http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v8n3/welfare.html
Valdosta State University, “Maslow's hierarchy of needs” http://chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/col/regsys/maslow.html
Book Review: Mobituaries
6 years ago
No comments:
Post a Comment