I once saw a Christian asking a political question of someone he looked to as spiritual leader. (I would add a disclaimer that the spiritual leader had no official capacity in any church, as far as I know.) He was asking in good faith, trying to discern his way through complicated times, concerned how a certain conflict was being handled by the then-current president. (Nevermind which president that was, so that the scenario could be relevant to anyone.) The answer was another question: Do you support the president?
Accepting that question into the conversation was a misstep; I'll come back to that.
The questioner said Yes, he supported the president. And the responder moved on as if that answered the question about the conflict and its handling. In a way it did: unconditional support for a worldly leader, or party, carries risks that people have not always thought through.
When the question became, "Do you support the president?", the question stopped being, "What is the faithful Christian stance?" A better answer to "Do you support the president?" would be "When I think he's right." That response would have guided the conversation back to relevant territory. I've heard similar questions over the years where "Do you support the party?" was the question that moved the conversation off of meaningful spiritual ground. And many worldly calls to pick a side are baited with pride.
The question of which political party should guide our spiritual discernment is already on faulty premises. It "looks past the sale," as some would say, about whether a political party should be guiding our spiritual discernment in the first place. Our support of a political party can never bring light to the world. Our insistence on bringing light to the world -- if we seek it first -- might.
If we try to tie two things together -- faith and politics -- whichever one is more flexible is going to bend.
1 comment:
Good guidance.
Post a Comment