If you follow my blog, then you know that I have a political mantra by which I live: There is no such thing as a Christian politician. I’ve stated it many times and I think it is a good reminder for those who vote for politicians based only on their religion. There is no way to uphold the goodness, honesty and honorable qualities of a Christian (or most other faiths for that matter) and be a politician.
Not that politicians are bad people, necessarily; but the soul-selling that must go on in order for someone to attain such heights precludes one from being deeply Christians beyond the superficial showing up for church or attending press-covered prayer meetings. Singing about eagles and saying you are devout does little to cleanse one’s soul, but it does play well in the press.
I do think my political barometer does have a scale. That is to say, I don’t think it is black and white, but rather a spectrum. I think on a local level, it can be easier to balance corruption and religion. As one attains more notoriety and power – especially power – the further down the scale the Christian falls.
New blogger, Ryan, has already taken issue with my statement. He makes the point: “These things (Christianity and politics) are not mutually exclusive. What is true is that a politician has an almost impossible task of living a life that exemplifies that faith.”
On a philosophical level, I suppose it depends on how you define Christian. If you define Christianity in it’s simplest terms of only believing in Christ as the Son of God, then he’s probably right. One can hold that belief, live the corrupt life, and still label themselves Christians.
I intend the quote to be deeper. I resolve the issue, if only inside my own head, by understanding that being a Christian means more than just saying it’s so.
Not that politicians are bad people, necessarily; but the soul-selling that must go on in order for someone to attain such heights precludes one from being deeply Christians beyond the superficial showing up for church or attending press-covered prayer meetings. Singing about eagles and saying you are devout does little to cleanse one’s soul, but it does play well in the press.
I do think my political barometer does have a scale. That is to say, I don’t think it is black and white, but rather a spectrum. I think on a local level, it can be easier to balance corruption and religion. As one attains more notoriety and power – especially power – the further down the scale the Christian falls.
New blogger, Ryan, has already taken issue with my statement. He makes the point: “These things (Christianity and politics) are not mutually exclusive. What is true is that a politician has an almost impossible task of living a life that exemplifies that faith.”
On a philosophical level, I suppose it depends on how you define Christian. If you define Christianity in it’s simplest terms of only believing in Christ as the Son of God, then he’s probably right. One can hold that belief, live the corrupt life, and still label themselves Christians.
I intend the quote to be deeper. I resolve the issue, if only inside my own head, by understanding that being a Christian means more than just saying it’s so.
Posts
6 comments:
Is it your contention that you have to sell your soul to even be elected to congress, or that you have to sell it to get Re-Elected? Does the mayor have to sell his soul? How about City Council? How about State Representatives?
Is it maybe possible that you're making too blanket a statement?
I think we have a bonafide problem in this country with how we define Christian behavior. I think it is such a problem I actually wrote a post on it.
Don't take that philosophical statement too literally. It serves as a reminder that those who claim Christianity just to get elected may not be as Christian as they claim. Isn't there a Bible verse about those who pray in public versus those who pray in the closet? (Hint: Yes there is.)
As I stated in the article, there is a sliding scale. The higher one moves on the political scale, the more one's soul is sold for power.
Don't take it too literally. Don't be too black and white when you view this statement.
Maybe the statement could therefore be amended to say "Beware anyone that proclaims their religious status from the political platform."
I could agree with that statement wholeheartedly. Honestly, I think Ron Paul is a stand up Christian man, but he rarely talked about it in his bid for the Presidency. He only talked about it if it was a direct question.
People like Huckabee who make their religious background central to their campaign should be regarded suspiciously.
On the flip side, a strong Christian will inherently talk about the truth of scriptures when discussing philosophical topics. I think the key point that you've emphasized is the danger signs of emphasizing status over principles and truth.
I tend to be on the side of asking questions to stir conversation rather than making challenging and vague statements :) Either way, I think the resulting conversation can be good.
Jeremy,
LOL. Nice shot. We actually agree here, me thinks. Good discussion. I don't have a problem with the way I've phrased it, as I see my statement kin to a political cartoon that overemphasizes the bad to prove a point. But I see your point, too.
This was fun. Thanks for playing. Did you see my post about third party candidates? Thanks to you!
Thank you for the kind words. I enjoy our conversations immensely. Like we talked about it allows me think about other ideas.
I offer this in response to talk primarily about politics: If you haven't seen Big Bang Theory on CBS you should because it is hilarious with intellectual sarcasm.
Post a Comment