While I am currently registered as an independent it would be hypocritical of me to pretend to be an objective moderate. I lean toward the position of the Democrats on most issues. When the Republican National Convention was being televised last week I showed no interest. I can’t relate to the party, their platform, or their candidates. On the other hand, I was quite excited to hear a couple of speeches from the Democratic National Convention: the one by First Lady Michelle Obama and other by my future mayor, Julian Castro. The Democrats tend to represent people I know and the people for whom I’ve cared most of my life.
I do my best to remain critical of the party I favor though. I try to use my commitment to Christ as a critical lens through which I can view and assess our politicians. I know my political values are not necessarily one and the same with Christian values on all issues. This is not to say that I don’t try to think as a Christian about social matters. Rather, I admit fallibility. I am bound to be wrong. I won’t bracket my faith though, or pretend that it does not influence how I vote, or what political agendas I support. I can’t deny that my religious values create internal conflict as I try to think about our nation’s politics.
I understand there are Christians who find the Republican party to better reflect their religious values. This doesn’t surprise me. I understand their presuppositions and I think that many of them vote Republican because they think it is the best option for a Christian.
Then I know Christians who don’t align with either party. I think I respect them the most! I wish I could be more like them at times. (I speak of the American context, not the global one.)
Last night a friend sent me a link to an article titled ‘Democrats Remove All References to ‘God’ from 2012 Political Platform,’ but he did not include commentary. I don’t know the motivation, but I respect the man, so I assume he wanted to know my thoughts. It may be that he knows I lean leftward, so he wanted to know if this bothers me.
It doesn’t.
Why? First of all, I know that there are Christians who are part of the Democratic Party. I know they are loyal to the party and they vote for the party’s ticket. This doesn’t mean they are “right,” but they live their religious values the best they can in the political arena.
Second, I know there are Christians who are Republicans. When I put these two together it is a reminder that no party speaks for the Christian God. Christians may be in both parties. Neither party is “Christian.”
Third, we are part of a pluralistic nation. What is meant when we say “God bless America?” Which god? Last night Mayor Castro said, “God bless America.” He is Roman Catholic. He may be invoking the Christian God. But “God” seems to me to be quite bland when connected to politics. It is more a god of the deist than the God of Christianity. It is a god who favors a particular nation over the other nations of the world rather than the Creator God to whom all nations are accountable and over whom the Creator God remains sovereign with his Son, Jesus the Messiah reigning from his “right hand” of power (a confession based on the doctrine of the ascension). I don’t expect a political party to rally around the Christian God. There are other matters than hold parties together–even the “God and Country” Republicans do not all value the God of Christianity.
Fourth, and most importantly, the God of Christianity is free from our systems, from our theological constructs, from our political alliances. Bobby Grow wrote a post the other day titled, “We are Not the Masters, God is!” He addresses Karl Barth’s views on God’s freedom and he explains, “Put simply, Barth does not want to offer a theological method or approach that makes God bound (or a predicate) to his own creation—so Barth wants to make sure that anything we say or do, Christianly/theologically, understands that God is sovereign and free.”
This is important. When we talk about the Christian God’s relationship to our politics we must remember that God is never on our side. He is not confined to the Republican agenda, the Democratic agenda, the Libertarians, the Socialist, the Marxists, or fans of Ayn Rand. Our God is not our God because of us. Our God is our God because he chose us freely.
If we are blessed we are on the side of the Christian God on various matters. We find ways to care for the “least of these,” for the poor, for the downtrodden. We take care of our orphans and widows. We do not submit to false deities like Mammon or Ba’al or Mars (sadly, we fail here all too often).
So do I care that a party uses so-called “god-talk?” No. I don’t, because I don’t think a party can monopolize God and I don’t think in a pluralistic society a party can share the same deity for adoration and worship. I rather that we be honest about this. Christians live as Christians. Live your faith in the political arena with wisdom. But parties cannot be faithful to God as a whole. It isn’t possible.
the archives near Emmaus 
Quoted for truth “it is a reminder that no party speaks for the Christian God.”
Well put.
Politics is for humanity, by humanity – democracy especially!
As for me and my house – I’m a monarchist. Christ is my King. Until he claims his thrown, however, I’ll have to settle for less.
I did find it ironic that the benediction prayer last night (by an Evangelical) prayed for both Obama and Romney. This might have occurred during the RNC as well, but I didn’t hear about it.
The portion about Obama, “I pray for our president, Barack Obama. May he know your presence, oh God, as he continues to serve as a leader of this nation, as a husband to Michelle and as a father to his daughters. Help him to see justice, love mercy and walk humbly with you.”
And immediately after for Romney, “I pray as well for Gov. Mitt Romney. May he know your presence, oh God, as he continues to serve as a leader, as a husband to Ann and as a father to his sons and their families,” she said. “Help him to see justice, love mercy and walk humbly with you.”
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/young-evangelical-leader-prays-for-mitt-romney-during-dnc-benediction/
It amazes me that some on the right do equate the Republican party with the “Christian” party. Some have even gone as far as to say you can’t be a Democrat and a Christian.
Craig .. where would that leave us non-Americans who are neither?
Andrew, that would be the million dollar question!
Andrew
Me too!
Adam
I didn’t hear that prayer, but that is quite the jab at the end there.
Craig
I’ve heard that rhetoric too. I try to remind people who say those things that Republicans have as many moral quagmires to face as Democrats.
She prayed almost the exact same thing for both. It may have been intended as a jab, but it would be pretty hard for Republicans to complain about someone praying Micah 6:8 for a presidential candidate.
Adam
For some reason I overlooked that the same line was included in the Obama prayer. Weird!
I don’t think there’s a “God conspiracy,” but it had to be admitted that such an ommission was odd.
They just motioned to correct some of these omissions and you talk about tension! The ayes and nayes matched. He had them do it again. Then again. After counseling he overruled in the affirmative.
The prayers and invocation are very visible today too. I think the secularism parts of the Dem Party, similar to the Extreme Fundamentalist Right Theocrats, are what is under suspicion here, not that the “Democrats hate God,” though (embarrassingly) some of my Christian friends may even suggest that.
I’m a registered independent. I tend to vote for conservative, particularly on the federal level, in terms of economics. I’m much more liberal on social policy — again with regard to the role of federal government. I’ve been politically aloof until 4 weeks ago, which is part of my “every 4 years” civic duty.
Though far apart ideologicaly, as it gets fleshed out, I don’t see a huge difference between the parties. Election season is when they seem so far apart. But I do admit that this particular election is one of the most ideological contrasting.
I tire of the sound-byte election seasons. Of cable news networks straining to “appear” objective, and sometimes not even trying. FOX practically in Mitt’s payroll, CNN in President Obama’s. I seem improvements on some segments, and love the Fact Checker segments.
Andrew T I appreciated your first post, BTW. Well said.
No one owns God, but religion aside, and certainly Christianity vs Non-Christianity aside (which the omission of God is far more general than “the absence of Christ,” a product/platform absent of God, even in the Deist sense, is alarming to most of us. It’s tradition. It’s the idea of verbiage throughout the Constitution, the idea of a Creator, etc. I don’t look to my political platform to inform my faith… but Theism vs Atheism is a very different thing altogether for me. Plenty of my Libertarian friends are irreligious, but most of them are agnostic or Deists. Very few are atheists.
I also think there are good Christians on both sides of politics, and sides not even part of our two-party system. Both want to “care for the downtrodden,” but come up with different solutions, particularly as it relates to the role of Federal government. This shouldn’t be lost in the demonizing rhetorics, as Republicans call Obama the anti-Christ, and liberals call Mitt an privileged, evil, white rich man. This is what Day 1 of both conventions was about.
One has to wonder why the delegates did not approve the motion to recognize Jerusalem, and add veribiage of “God” back to the language of the platform, all endorsed and approved by President Obama. What an awkward moment.
Clarification: Why the “boo”s and stand-off over it. Support the POTUS, it’s basically his convention.
Dems are much less party oriented than Republicans in general. This is a good example.
@Adam I don’t know… they’ve done a great job up until this episode… well-done speeches, great selections of presenters, singers, etc. Parties are a huge momentum build, and having the party second is an advantage. But you may be right that GOP is more “party centered.”
Party centered might be the wrong words. Both are very party centered. But Democrats (especially at the grass roots level) claim independence as important and don’t mind bucking the party on issues like this.
On the other hand, Romney has always insisted that he supports legal abortion in cases of rape and incest and after Akin’s remarks some thought that would be in the official platform. But the platform that passed gave no exception.
Platforms are documents that are mostly for insiders and minor language is very important. This is probably an example of that.
And DNC super-scrutinzed the RNC party platform, that this huge fumble, including the most recent awkward motion by the former LA mayor was a horrible political blunder. Cable news will be talking about that for next 24 hours probably.
@Adam Both have grass roots movements in their party fringes. That’s a given.
As far as abortion, which is a horrible wedge issue that is almost now irrelevent to the POTUS 20 years after Roe v Wade, I’m sure it’s more representative of the party base. They aren’t big fans of abortion…. the fringe on the Dems are big fans of Israel…. or God (I jest on the last point, pulling my best Hannity impersonation – eek).
The platform did not get into abortion specifics at RNC. So silence is not necessarily meaning there are no conditions. No problem for me, except Dems will spin this in sound-bytes painting Repubs as mysoginistic, women-haters who want to control their bodies. Sickening political game with a sensitive ethics and politics topic. Whatever.
And lots of Republicans will spin this to mean that Dems hate God.
I glanced through 5 articles about the discussion around Abortion on the RNC platform. All said there was no discussion. But I listened to an interview with a woman on the committee that said she introduced an amendment. No article I could find even mentioned her.
@Adam It’s a political game to me though… it will be spun for sure, they’d be foolish not to take the political field position on this punt… but in the same way as “Republicans hate women” nonsense I see RT’d.
Abortion is a non-issue. Dems tried to play politics with it to seize on the women vote, which Mitt and Co are lacking.
Personally, I’m very much opposed to Roe v Wade, and like Ron Paul, not a big fan of Fed Govt making that decision either way. As a Christian… well… my response should be obvious.
Weird… CNN just reported the Delegate “boos” and “nayes” were more about the adding back of “God” into the platform, than Jerusalem. Without playing the dumb political game with everything, really trying to understand that one.
Not that any one may care, but I shared your lack of enthusiasm towards the Republican convention. And I have the exact same feelings towards the DNC’s. I just find flaws so fatal in both I can’t get worked up about any of it.
Erik
I am sympathetic. Most of the convention rhetoric bores me. I have listened to three speeches total: Michelle Obama, Julian Castro, and Bill Clinton. I listed to Michelle because I think she is a really amazing woman. I listed to Mayor Castro because I am moving to San Antonio (he will be my mayor) and he is the first Latino to address the DNC. I listened to Clinton because I think he does try to give his audience “data” to consider. I haven’t listened to anyone else though I plan to listen to the President’s speech.
For me it is things like the participation of women and minorities in the DNC and the desire to avoid the type of spending the characterized Regan-Bush-Bush over against Clinton-Obama (my lifespan right there) that tip me toward their direction. Oh, and the end of the Iraq War. Other than that they are far too similar.