God's Politics
Last month, Mark Daniels made a pledge at RedBlueChristian and at his own blog, "A Pledge I Wish Every Christian Leader Would Make":
I promise not to endorse any political candidate, platform, or party in the 2008 election cycle. I promise instead to use my influence and my recognized position of leader to pursue the mission of the Church, making disciples for Jesus Christ.I left some questions at RedBlueChristian in the hope of gaining a better understanding of Daniels's position. Essentially, I can see why Christian leaders might not want to opine on various matters, particularly as it impacts their scope of appeal and their responsibility to faithfully represent God, but I disputed the idea that all Christian leaders should not publicly voice political opinions.
Daniels states that "When we hold Jesus captive to particular philosophies, parties, or candidates, we're really guilty of a kind of idolatry in which we make Jesus over into our image." But how should we separate this kind of "idolatry" from other divergent understandings of God's will, Biblical interpretations, and moral applications in general?
Daniels also advises that "By all means, Christians should be involved in the political process. We should also pray that God will show us how we should behave and believe politically." But Christians just shouldn't look to their pastors for moral guidance on this particular subject?
A blogger named Pastor_Jeff joins in the pledge, though I wonder by his later comments whether he isn't admiting a public political philosophy but falling short of endorsing a candidate or party.
David M. Smith, a Christian blogger I've enjoyed reading recently, questions the slogan employed by Daniels that "God is not a Democrat or a Republican". In "God is not...or is He?", David comments upon the central issue of morality in religion and politics.
Back in July 2006, MarkC also posted about "Obama on Religion in Politics", in which Obama eloquently addressed this issue concerning separating Church and State in light of their shared moral core.
What do you think? How should religious leaders treat the moral issues in politics, and why?
34 comments:
Hi Kevin,
To me the answer is obvious; from the book of James:
”Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says. Anyone who listens to the word but does not do what it says is like a man who looks at his face in a mirror and, after looking at himself, goes away and immediately forgets what he looks like. But the man who looks intently into the perfect law that gives freedom, and continues to do this, not forgetting what he has heard, but doing it—he will be blessed in what he does.”
It seems very bizarre to me for a Christian leader to advocate for believers turning over our government to the secular and non-Christian members of society. If a Pastor is unable to differentiate between the competing moral implications of changes to public policy or the competing politicians, the Pastor should find another job.
Kevin,
Thanks for coming to the rescue of this long-dormant blog! We hit some serious summer doldrums, and I haven't been able to motivate myself to write anything to fill in the void. So, thanks for jumping in. :)
Mark Daniels is reacting against the misuse of religious power to affect politics, which is so marked on the right these days. This is evident on the large scale (Focus on the Family being the prime example) and on the small scale (innumerable local churches touting particular candidates or parties from the pulpit).
I agree with Mark Daniels as far as that goes. But, I think he goes too far with his blanket restriction. I would make two qualifications on his statement.
(1) Religious leaders must be able to advocate, publicly and in their official capacity, political positions. To prevent that is to act as if religious belief has no impact on social life. So, to the degree that the political positions that a religious leader advocates align with some particular platform, and by extension to some particular party or candidate, then such (at least implicit) advocacy is appropriate.
I agree with Mark Daniels, though, to the extent that this influential position is currently being greatly misused, and should be wielded with much more caution and humility than is generally seen.
(2) Religious leaders must be able to be citizens apart from their influential position. As citizens, they should be able to advocate for any party or candidate that they choose, with as much fervor as they desire. But, they must be careful to not use their religious-leader influence to get a wider audience for their private-citizen views.
An example of how this was misused recently was the statement from James Dobson that "as a private citizen" he would not be able to vote for Giuliani for president because of his position on abortion. If James Dobson wants to speak as a private citizen, he can do so, in the same sort of forums that private citizens generally have available... but if James Dobson is going to write an article for national publication, it doesn't much matter whether he says he's speaking as a private citizen or not... he has that forum because of his position as a religious leader, and his message will be heard as such.
There can be lots of gray areas here. Let's say that a pastor has a personal blog, one that he has maintained for years as a separate entity from his church work. Should he be able to post his political advocacy on that blog? Certainly, I think.
But, what if that blog is linked to from the church's website as "Pastor Tim's blog". How about then? I'd say no. Once that direct connection is made from the public religious influential position, the blog is no longer personal, and is not easily distinguished from the religious-leader influence of the pastoral position.
So, how would my two modifications of Daniels' position apply to, say, Dobson's statement about Giuliani? If I were in Dobson's position, what would I do differently?
Well, in the first place, I would not make any public statements with the "as a private citizen" caveat. As a religious leader, it is appropriate for Dobson to advocate a complete cessation of abortions. But then, rather than singling out one candidate for censure, I would make the connection from that policy position to a (qualified, single-issue) statement of support for particular candidates that are aligned with that policy. And, I would be careful to stop there (because there's more to a President than a single policy issue!); that is, I wouldn't continue to actively politic for that candidate beyond affirming his/her support for that policy issue I was advocating.
So, in summary: Speaking as religious leaders, they should advocate policies and give only limited or implicit support for parties or candidates insofar as they support those policies. Speaking as private people, to the degree that is possible, they can advocate to their heart's content.
That's the way I hope I would act with that sort of special influence.
Mark
Thanks, Mark. I'm happy to help, especially considering that I've benefited so very often from your being the motivating force here.
I also recently left a comment on David's blog and he concernedly asked me about our lack of posts, which compelled me to post.
Thank you both for helping to revive discussion here. I've been missing it. :)
David,
Welcome. :) Thanks for joining in and so succinctly describing your position -- with Scripture, even. I think we are pretty closely aligned on this topic.
Like you, I doubt the utility and universal reasoning for restricting pastors from opining on politics, even in detail, though perhaps you are taking it a step further and suggesting that, as part of a pastor's job of providing moral counsel, he is actually obliged to share his political views?
Kevin
Mark,
Your position makes more sense to me than does Mark Daniels's. You seem to draw a boundary which permits public declaration of a rather detailed political philosophy, but prohibits direct application of that philosophy to promote a candidate or a party. Is this correct? Does the prohibition extend to addressing specific legislation as well?
While reading your post I felt like you anticipated some of my questions, which was neat and appreciated. My primary remaining question is, why is it generally a misuse of religious power to affect politics with greater specificity? It seems like this should probably be obvious to me but I'm missing it at the moment.
Is the flock obliged to uncritically follow the pastor? Some very well might, but wouldn't that apply to his other preaching or opining as well, which could also be erroneous?
I can appreciate the pragmatic reasons for your careful handling of the special influence of a leader, such as uncertainty about God's will or to remain more influential with a larger following, but are there other factors you are considering?
For example, Dobson may be alienating part of his base, muddying perceptions of himself and his works and associations, or giving bad political advice. Anything else? Do you think his actions are wrong in principle or just distasteful?
I'm also curious if it would be possible within your boundaries for Dobson to grow in public prominence as a political pundit independently from his role as a religious leader? Or perhaps the ideal road to such duality begins with being known as a pundit first and then becoming a pastor?
Kevin
Hi again Kevin,
Yes, I do think it is the role and responsibility of a Pastor to nurture, advise, and even confront members of his Church regarding all moral matters including politics.
However, I do not think it the responsibility of an evangelist or a Bible teacher to necessarily opine on politics, but political illustrations may help to make a Biblical point. For example, the love of money has both Biblical and political implications. How could a Bible teacher in America teach the Bible without pointing out how the love of money has affected legislative actions and judicial decisions?
Hi Markc,
How has the right misused politics nowadays?
Also, how is political involvement illegitimate for Focus on the Family? I can give you a long list of ways the government is involved in the life of my family, why shouldn’t believers have an organization that represents the concerns of the family to the government?
Note, I do not usually agree with those who speak for the religious right, including Focus on the Family, but I don’t see how they have misused politics or how their involvement is illegitimate.
David,
You make a good argument, and your concise comment to MarkC addresses my curiosity as well.
There are, of course, practical considerations for not opining on a topic, some of which I've mentioned. There's also the non-profit status of many churches which is contingent upon drawing the boundaries that I think Mark is inclined to draw.
Perhaps this is a case of such law leading to common practice leading to a sense of decorum?
Kevin
In case anyone is curious, I came across "Dos and Don'ts for March 2006: Political Activities of Pastors" which summarizes the requirements for churches to maintain tax exemption. It hints that federal election laws may be a relevant cause for some items as well.
Let's see if I can make sense of my thoughts (to myself as much as to the rest of you!).
I have no problem at all with FOTF being an "organization that represents the concerns of the family to the government"... a PAC, basically. I'm all for FOTF engaging in political advocacy on its particular areas of expertise.
In the same way, I don't have a problem with pastors or other religious leaders engaging in limited political advocacy, and even giving limited support to particular parties or candidates.
It's that limited part that I think is important, and that I think FOTF and other religious organizations have left behind. Single-issue politics are very dangerous, even when the issue is as important as abortion. FOTF is quite appropriate to point out which candidates are anti-abortion, and which have other views that FOTF considers to be in the best interests of the family... but it seems to me that FOTF goes beyond that, to advocating for particular candidates or parties. FOTF also has a tendency to start opining about political issues that have nothing to do with religion or the family. When they do this, they become a purely political organization, almost akin to a political party... but they still call themselves a religious organization. That's where I think the problem lies.
FOTF has recently split off a "separate" organization called "Focus on the Family Action" which can engage in more direct political activities because it isn't tax-exempt. I find the confluence of the naming of the two organizations (and the shared personnel) to be essentially dishonest. It is an attempt to apply religious authority to broad-ranging political views.
If James Dobson wants to become a political activist, then I would recommend that he completely break ties with Focus on the Family, and start a separate organization with an unrelated name. Trying to keep his feet in both camps at the same time, with a nearly indistinguishable name separating his two activities, is confusing to say the least.
Mark
Mark,
Avoiding confusion between FOTF and FOTFA seems like a good idea for legal reasons, though it may also be helpful to have some indication of the relationship.
But is your basic concern legal? Or is it that the pastor may be morally wrong in his endorsement? Or that the congregation will blindly follow? Or that, even without claim of divine inspiration and merely by association, it may reflect poorly upon God or Christianity?
Essentially, what is the specific risk of applying religious authority to detailed political views that doesn't exist in other applications of religious authority?
I believe you would draw the same line even if you agree with a pastor's political views, so I'm wondering if the possibility of a bad outcome is just too great a risk or if there is something persistently and inherently wrong with the act.
Kevin
Kevin,
You're right that my basic concern isn't legal. My concerns are practical, for the most part.
Correctly evaluating public policy requires a careful evaluation of economics, sociology, sometimes biology or other sciences, etc. This is not at all the specialization of religious leaders. When religious leaders try to become arbiters of what is godly public policy, they are likely to cause mayhem with their good intentions. Effective economic policy, for example, is not always common sense. I believe religious leaders should focus on their area of expertise.
Note here that I give a caveat about particular areas of public policy that are closely aligned with moral or religious issues. Within those areas of expertise, I believe religious leaders should speak freely and strongly... they should simply limit their speech to the areas where they can speak with reliable authority, and make it clear that it is limited in that way.
The same goes for evaluating particular candidates. Candidate evaluation needs to go much deeper than determining if the candidate says the right things about a few moral issues. It is important to look at the social and economic ramifications of leadership positions the candidate has held in the past, and to critically evaluate their ideas about a wide variety of issues. This is the proper realm of the political scientists, the economists, and the foreign policy experts... not religious leaders. They're simply not qualified, by their training or experience, to speak well on those issues (excepting the clearly moral/religious ones).
When they try, they are likely to botch the job. And when they attach their religion's name to their recommendations, that increases the likelihood that impressionable people will follow them in botching the situation, and then after the fact reflects badly on their religion and its followers.
To the degree that politics intersects with areas of religious expertise (morality, etc.), then by all means religious leaders should speak out forcibly, and point out which candidates are in line with those positions. But they really need to limit themselves to the areas they can speak well about, and not attempt to be the central clearinghouse for all useful information about a candidate or public policy.
Mark
Mark,
So, "avoid speaking out of ignorance" is your primary admonition to religious leaders, and your ultimate concern is that they will be wrong, mislead their followers, and poorly represent their group and religion. Is this correct? Would this apply to leaders of non-religious groups as well?
Does that mean that if Dobson were also a (formally educated?) political scientist then his rejection of a candidate would be more permissible? Or is that a false hypothetical and any good political pundit would necessarily have a more nuanced approach?
I get the sense that there may be something missing between calling for more prudent, rational, knowledgeable, and well supported arguments, and calling for a cessation of detailed candidate or party punditry altogether.
Kevin
Kevin,
Dobson, as a private citizen, in the type of forums that are available to him as a private citizen, is welcome to be as much of a pundit as he feels like being, whether properly educated or not.
So, I'm not concerned with whether or not Dobson is a trained political scientist.
I believe that organizations whose purpose is religious should stick, as organizations, to religious issues.
And, most religious organizations believe they are doing that. They talk about political issues from a moral perspective, and make recommendations on wide-ranging issues from purportedly moral standpoints.
The thing is, most political issues are not primarily moral issues. Most political issues are primarily economic and sociological issues. Religious organizations (whatever the training of the leadership may be) should not become arbiters of good socio-economics.
So, I would consider it proper for a pastor to preach about the importance of proper attitudes toward illegal immigrants, and proper ways for the government to act morally toward illegal immigrants... but always with the caveat that the bulk of the question of how to deal with illegal immigration is not moral, but is socio-economic.
I would consider it proper for a pastor to advocate against legalized abortion, and to point out the stands that particular candidates or parties take on that issue... with the caveat that legalized abortion is just one issue in a wide range of socio-economic issues that determine good political leadership, and that the pastor's recommendation can only extend to issues pertaining to religion.
It really doesn't matter whether that pastor is personally qualified to speak more intelligently about socio-economics... it is not the role of a religious organization (or a person speaking on behalf of that organization) to comment on socio-economic policy.
My concern is that religious organizations have gotten into the habit of becoming political pundits based purely on moral issues, without recognizing (or openly clarifying) that their views are limited in scope.
This will often lead to bad decisions, will often reflect badly on the religions represented... and also helps develop bad habits (single-issue voting, for example) in the electorate. We've got enough bad habits as it is... we don't need them reinforced.
Mark
Mark wrote: "... but always with the caveat that the bulk of the question of how to deal with illegal immigration is not moral, but is socio-economic."
What divisive, amoral, socio-economic questions are you considering?
I can imagine amoral disagreements about the applicability or predictive accuracy of various socio-economic theories, but I think there are usually moral weightings and sacrifices involved in choosing between them.
i.e. I don't think it is accidental that the principles advanced by such theories seem to go hand in hand with particular morals, such as capitalism and individual freedom, or socialism and equity or charity.
It might even be arguable that each political party is centered around such morals and their diverse weightings.
Does the prudence you seek from religious leaders extend to any other leaders? Perhaps there's a presumption that they are morally correct and speaking for God that exacerbates any mistakes they make?
Kevin
Kevin,
I'm really not sure what you're asking that I haven't already answered. I've given a few case studies in which I tried to illustrate my thoughts.
I should give the caveat that my thoughts are not solidified, and this is not some sort of black-and-white immovable principle. There are lots of gray areas here. I have a hard time going beyond generalizations.
But, if you have some particular situations where you don't think my model would fit, or where you wonder where I would draw the line, throw them at me. I'll give them a shot.
As for your last question... in general, I think issue-specific groups should for the most part stick to issue-specific politicking. And, for the most part, I think they do.
I think the problem is most pronounced in certain Christian organizations (in some cases, because they think the Bible answers every conceivable question; in other cases, because they think their issues so overwhelm all other issues that single-issue voting is proper).
I also think that caution and humility are more important when the powerful force of religion is behind someone's words. With great power comes great responsibility.
Mark
Mark,
Sorry to put you in that spot. As usual, I'm forming my opinion as we go, too. :)
In terms of specific examples, I recently came across BalancedPolitics.org which appears to collect some of the arguments pro and con on various topics. If you want, we could pick one and consider the amoral and moral aspects in detail.
In going through some of them, I don't believe all of the arguments are entirely valid but I think that is part of the larger process of weighing the morals represented in each item and emphasizing some while sacrificing others.
Mark wrote: "I think the problem is most pronounced in certain Christian organizations (in some cases, because they think the Bible answers every conceivable question; in other cases, because they think their issues so overwhelm all other issues that single-issue voting is proper)."
But, presumably, God does have an opinion on every moral question, even if we can only find broad principles in the Bible that are pertinent. Perhaps that is part of the problem.
I agree that single-issue voting is generally improper, which I also consider to be a moral judgement (they're everywhere :)).
Mark wrote: "I also think that caution and humility are more important when the powerful force of religion is behind someone's words. With great power comes great responsibility."
Wise counsel. And perhaps that is the crux. What is that power? In the context of this discussion, perhaps it is born of the assumption that religious leaders speak for God?
We can either diminish our expectations and accept their declarations in that context or else push them toward preaching generalities and principles in order to maintain a greater sense of their infallibility. Could this be part of it?
To me, the issue isn't that their domain is limited to moral considerations and that excludes politics, because I see morality everywhere; it's an enormous domain. I see them as struggling just like the rest of us to determine justice and share it.
It may be helpful for me to mention that my perspective on this subject might be influenced by my not really being a follower of any particular leaders. I would imagine that if I were, and I disagreed with their politics, it would be quite annoying and lead me to wonder, "why do they have to ruin a perfectly good message with politics?" :)
Kevin
Kevin wrote: But, presumably, God does have an opinion on every moral question
Yes, and maybe even every socio-economic question. Who knows. But God sure hasn't communicated his opinions on all those issues to us.
There are two types of religious leaders, and we shouldn't conflate them.
(a) There are religious leaders that claim to have a direct communication with their God, so that they speak infallibly on behalf of their God.
These leaders are in the great minority, and I haven't been considering them in my discussions here.
(b) There are leaders that are passing on a fixed or mostly fixed teaching, generally recorded in a book or set of books, or in a creed of some kind, that identify the mandates of their religion.
Most religious leaders fit here, and it is these religious leaders that I've been referring to. They don't speak directly for their God. But, they do claim to accurately apply what they have as a creed or holy book to current situations... and most do so with very little doubt or uncertainty.
-----
I haven't looked at the site you recommended, but I'd be happy to discuss a perfect example... the issue of poverty.
Caring for the poor is a definite moral/religious value. Most religions hold that as an important moral goal. Certainly Christianity does.
Both Republicans and Democrats also, at least in theory, desire to effectively care for the poor. And both generally think the other's methods of doing so are ineffective and probably insincere.
Certain candidates, such as John Edwards, make caring for the poor a central part of their campaign. Other candidates mention it only seldom.
I don't think there is any question that it is appropriate for a religious leader to advocate caring for the poor.
But, how appropriate would it be for a religious leader, in his role as religious leader, to advocate for, say, John Edwards, arguing that his approach to caring for the poor would be more effective, or that his intention to care for the poor is more sincere?
Let's say that the religious leader goes beyond simply saying, "As far as caring for the poor goes, John Edwards is the best candidate", and instead says, "God cares for the poor; John Edwards cares for the poor. If you are in line with God, vote for the candidate who really cares for the poor!"
I believe that would be very unhealthy. John Edwards' approach to caring for the poor might be the most effective, but that's a complicated socio-economic question that nobody really knows the answer to. John Edwards might have a truly sincere concern for the poor, or he could be pretending as so many politicians do quite well.
And, caring for the poor, however important that is morally, is not the only issue worth considering in a potential candidate. Many other issues, including many socio-economic issues that are only peripherally "moral", are very important considerations.
Unfortunately, I don't think my example is even particularly exaggerated. I think statements like that take place pretty regularly in many Christian organizations.
Does that example make sense to you? Do you disagree with it somewhere? Is there some aspect of it that you need to have fleshed out?
Mark
Mark,
Mark wrote: "Yes, and maybe even every socio-economic question. Who knows. But God sure hasn't communicated his opinions on all those issues to us."
[...]
Mark wrote: "Most religious leaders fit here, and it is these religious leaders that I've been referring to. They don't speak directly for their God. But, they do claim to accurately apply what they have as a creed or holy book to current situations... and most do so with very little doubt or uncertainty."
So even if there are moral dilemmas that God has an opinion on but they are not in the creed or holy book, then religious leaders should not comment upon them? Or are you primarily focusing upon their lack of doubt?
Mark wrote: "Let's say that the religious leader goes beyond simply saying, "As far as caring for the poor goes, John Edwards is the best candidate", and instead says, "God cares for the poor; John Edwards cares for the poor. If you are in line with God, vote for the candidate who really cares for the poor!""
I see two distinctions in the above two examples. (1) the second concludes upon the paramountcy of a single issue and a single candidate, while the first does neither. (2) the second explicitly states it as God's opinion, while the first does not.
Regarding #1, I may disagree about which issues have precedence, but I do think some weightings are better than others. Deciding between emphasizing abortion or poverty or security or fiscal responsibility, etc. in choosing a candidate seems like a moral dilemma to me.
Regarding #2, I agree that such misuse of God is unhealthy. At the very least, uncertainty should temper if not practically eliminate such assertions.
But it seems to me that this line of reasoning is not limited to politics. e.g. A pastor can preach that "Modern music is of the devil," or "God does not want you to dance, or "God commands women to be submissive to men," or literally "Spare the rod and spoil the child," or "Give all that you have to the poor," etc.
Perhaps you could find better examples, but why is politics worse?
Mark wrote: "Does that example make sense to you? Do you disagree with it somewhere? Is there some aspect of it that you need to have fleshed out?"
Your example makes sense to me as a religious leader providing a bad argument and invocation of God. I don't disagree with you about it in particular but I'm trying to understand why the solution is to exclude all political conclusions rather than reprove their specific argument or their method of arguing?
We could flesh out specific socio-economic questions and their relation to morality, but even to the extent that they are different, why is it bad to combine them, and don't we ultimately have to combine them when making our final decision?
Kevin
Kevin,
So even if there are moral dilemmas that God has an opinion on but they are not in the creed or holy book, then religious leaders should not comment upon them?
I guess I didn't communicate clearly. That first paragraph of mine was tongue-in-cheek. God may have an opinion on such matters, but the religious leaders in question have no way of knowing God's opinion, so God's possible opinion (which we don't and can't know, since He hasn't revealed it to us) is of no consequence to us. We can only speak about God's opinions to the extent that God has revealed His opinions to us.
So, on issues where God "may" have an opinion that we can't possibly know, religious leaders shouldn't speak as if they know God's potential opinion. Did I muddy the waters enough? :)
I do think some weightings are better than others. Deciding between emphasizing abortion or poverty or security or fiscal responsibility, etc. in choosing a candidate seems like a moral dilemma to me.
Yes, it is. This is where the "gray area" disclaimer comes into play. I can give clear examples of good communication, and clear examples of bad communication... but there's obviously a lot of gray area in the middle that is tricky. Speaking about relative priorities of various moral issues is such a gray area. There is a degree to which a religious leader can do that appropriately. It is also quite possible for a religious leader to do that inappropriately (speaking with purported religious authority beyond what the religious creed/scripture allows, primarily).
Perhaps you could find better examples, but why is politics worse?
It isn't. It just happens to be what Mark Daniels was talking about. :)
Abuse of religious authority to speak beyond the actual tenets of the religion is a huge problem, and one that appears commonly in families as well as in religious institutions. Parents don't like the idea of their child dying her hair green, but they can't come up with a good reason why she shouldn't, so they invoke their religious beliefs to trump all discussion or dissent. That's abuse of religion, and it happens often, and it's a terrible thing.
What I'm talking about is on a somewhat lesser scale in terms of abuse, and on a somewhat larger scale in terms of scope. But I certainly wouldn't call these political abuses of religion "worse" than other abuses of religion.
why is it bad to combine them, and don't we ultimately have to combine them when making our final decision?
As individuals, we definitely have to combine them when making our final decision. As a religious leader speaking on behalf of one's religion, no final decision on political matters is necessary in most cases.
That's where the problem really appears. A religious leader (say, the pastor of a church) becomes convinced that a particular candidate is the only good candidate because of a blend of religious/moral and socio-economic factors. He becomes afraid that some of his religious followers might be led astray by convincing TV ads. So, he uses his position as a religious leader to advocate for the candidate that he believes is best because of his blended religious and socio-economic analysis. In so doing, he communicates in such a way that his personal socio-economic analysis becomes entangled with his religious analysis, and both are presented with religious authority.
Again, there's lots of gray area here. There are times where religious leaders need to comment on socio-economic principles to some degree. There are weighting issues where in some cases religious/moral principles would reasonably override socio-economic analysis. This is no black-and-white line of demarcation.
I hope this is becoming more clear, not less clear, with each ensuing comment. I feel like I'm repeating myself. Sorry if I'm not communicating well.
Mark
Mark,
I think our path is spiral: we're covering some of the same ground repeatedly, but we are also converging on a point. I hope. :) Sorry I missed the tongue-in-cheek.
The gray area you mention may cover a lot of ground, and it seems like you may be leaning towards a case-by-case analysis rather than a blanket prohibition on stating political conclusions. If that is not the case, then I'm still confused by the following positions:
(1) A pastor cannot opine publicly without the connotation that he is invoking his religious authority. Everyone else can opine any which way.
(2) Even if a pastor would give some decent conclusive political advice or argument, it would still be wrong of him to do so publicly.
(3) If the solution to abuses of religion on the topic of politics is the blanket cessation of conclusive political statements by all religious leaders, what is the corresponding solution to abuses of religion on other topics?
Kevin
By the way, if you feel those are all redundant or you've already answered them, no worries, we can leave it there.
Maybe someone else will opine. In any case, I'm sure we'll come back to the subject eventually, perhaps from a different angle. :)
Kevin,
Let me respond to the positions that are confusing to you, as you stated them:
(1) A pastor cannot opine publicly without the connotation that he is invoking his religious authority. Everyone else can opine any which way.
This would be confusing. It's not what I believe. It may be possible for a pastor to opine "publicly" without invoking his religious authority. I don't think it's possible for James Dobson to do so on the national level, because he is only known on the national level as the head of a religious organization.
But, for example, a local pastor who is also an active member of a local community club can certainly opine in the context of his community club, even in, say, a public speech given at his club, to his heart's content. I have tried to be very careful to limit my comments to "religious leaders, when they are speaking as religious leaders".
It is quite possible for people to operate in different spheres, and the rules could very well be different in those different spheres.
That's why I gave the example of a pastor with a personal blog. As long as that blog was truly personal, I said that he could speak freely there about any topics that might interest him. Once that blog become a de facto extension of his religious persona, however, he needed to become far more circumspect.
(2) Even if a pastor would give some decent conclusive political advice or argument, it would still be wrong of him to do so publicly.
Only if he were doing so as a pastor (either explicitly or, as in the case of Dobson, using a forum that is only available to him because of his religious influence).
(3) If the solution to abuses of religion on the topic of politics is the blanket cessation of conclusive political statements by all religious leaders, what is the corresponding solution to abuses of religion on other topics?
I think that religious leaders, when speaking as religious leaders, should confine their conclusive statements to things that are actually conclusive within the confines of their religion. When religious leaders, speaking as religious leaders, speak conclusively about matters that go beyond what their religion speaks conclusively about, then they are using the authority of their religion to add weight to their personal and private opinions. That, in my mind, is abuse of religious authority.
Mark
Mark,
(1) Should a political pundit who gains fame and then becomes a pastor be permitted to opine on both subjects commensurate with his fame? Is it possible for Dobson to become a well-known pundit under your constraints, considering the overlap between his religion and his politics?
(2) Are religious leaders alone in this constraint? Is it also wrong for entertainment celebrities to opine on politics? i.e. even if they have some expertise in other areas, they should not opine because of the source of their fame.
(3) Can a religion be defined to include a framework (e.g. of moral weightings) for forming some conclusive politics? If not, why not?
Are there any questions you want to ask me? :)
Kevin
Kevin,
(1) That could probably work in some circumstances. It certainly will never work for Dobson, though, who has spent decades building a reputation for himself as a religious leader, and has no national audience without that position of religious authority.
(2) Religious leaders are not alone, but entertainers are not subject to the limitation. This limitation applies to individuals who speak on behalf of a larger organization. Religious leaders are the most important offenders in my opinion, but leaders of significant non-profit organizations or of government agencies would also be subject to the limitations I'm describing.
(3) To some degree, the answer is yes. It is extremely rare in practice, however, for a religion to give sufficient details of moral weighting to form conclusive political decisions. In practice, most times that religious leaders make conclusive political statements, they are heavily incorporating their personal opinions.
Mark
Mark,
So, the concern is that the religious leaders are misrepresenting their group or leading them in a direction that is outside the expected boundaries of that group.
At what point would the heavy incorporation of their personal opinions constitute a variant religion? I assume you would want it to be more formal than, for example, Dobson's statements concerning abortion being the most important issue?
Kevin
Kevin,
Mainly, I'd want them to acknowledge that they were branching off into a separate religion. :)
If, for example, Dobson publicly came out and stated that he was no longer advocating Christianity, but instead Dobsonism, which had much more rigidly-defined moral rules that allowed much more conclusive political statements than Christianity does... then I would no longer have a problem with Dobson.
Of course, Dobson would also lose his credibility and influence almost immediately.
It's when religious leaders use the identity afforded them by their religion to speak more influentially about their personal political ideas (which go beyond what the religion itself would support) that I believe religious abuse is taking place.
Mark
Mark,
:) If he did start calling it "Dobsonism", I think you're right that he'd lose his credibility pretty quickly, though I wonder how much would be due to the name and any insistence on breaking with Christianity, rather than due to the formalization of his position.
In any case, I don't get the impression that Dobson is incorporating it into his religion, but rather attempting a parallel effort. Maybe at some point he'll give up his role as a pastor and it'll no longer be an issue.
It's an interesting dilemma between those who closely follow Dobson and might be more inclined to agree with him, and the larger group that is more peripherally associated.
I guess it is a contention for definition. To me, Christianity does not exclude weighting issues or conclusive politics, but if it did, I could see your point. The downside is that politics may lose some positive effects of pastors, though the upside is that it will also lose the negative.
I think I'm pretty much out of questions. Thanks for letting me probe your thoughts on the matter. :)
Kevin
Kevin,
You wrote: I don't get the impression that Dobson is incorporating it into his religion, but rather attempting a parallel effort.
Certainly at some level Dobson is attempting to do that. But, given the decades Dobson has spent developing a public image as a religious leader, it will not be possible for him to do so, no matter what he says officially/legally.
Do you think the media will ever refer to Dobson as anything other than "the former head of the Christian organization Focus on the Family"? Do you think the majority of people who read his quotes will ever be able to think of him as any other than the head of FOTF? I doubt it.
When Dobson speaks on the public stage, he needs to understand that he is speaking as a representative of Focus on the Family. He doesn't have a choice about that. It's the result of decades of exposure in that role. If he wants to speak privately in a different capacity, that's fine... but when he speaks on the national stage (as he did in the interview I previously cited), he can't get away from his public persona.
It's an interesting dilemma between those who closely follow Dobson and might be more inclined to agree with him, and the larger group that is more peripherally associated.
I don't think it matters one way or the other. To those who closely follow him, he will be influential because of his religious affiliation... so he should avoid passing along his personal political views because of the danger of undue influence. To the more peripheral listeners, he stands as a representative of a large group of people, and should again avoid passing along his personal political views because of the danger of unfair misrepresentation. When Dobson is speaking on the national stage, he is speaking on behalf of an organization and a larger group of people; he needs to be careful to speak for that group, representing that group's views faithfully rather than his own.
To me, Christianity does not exclude weighting issues or conclusive politics
Maybe I'm stuck on your word "exclude" here... but I'm not interested as much in what Christianity excludes as in what it includes. Christianity doesn't exclude conclusive politics, but neither does it include it. Therefore, people who publicly represent Christianity should not (when they are speaking as such representatives) include conclusive politics either.
This applies most firmly to pastors/priests/etc., who are nothing but religious representatives. Dobson, as the representative of an organization that clearly blends Christianity with family psychology, has more leeway. I still think he takes that leeway much too far, however, as in the example I gave earlier in this thread.
Mark
Mark,
Mark wrote: "Do you think the majority of people who read his quotes will ever be able to think of him as any other than the head of FOTF? I doubt it."
You're probably right but, given your constraints, you make it sound like Dobson has trapped himself by his leadership association with Christianity. He should never comment conclusively on politics in public?
Mark wrote: "To those who closely follow him, he will be influential because of his religious affiliation..."
Like so many others, I think Dobson attracts like-minded people. I imagine that whatever "undue influence" Dobson wields is likely tempered by the choice of people to follow him. Or don't people actually evaluate his positions as we have?
Mark wrote: "Christianity doesn't exclude conclusive politics, but neither does it include it. Therefore, people who publicly represent Christianity should not (when they are speaking as such representatives) include conclusive politics either."
Limiting discussion to only what Christianity (e.g. the Bible) explicitly includes seems to limit a lot more than just conclusive politics, depending upon how closely to the history we choose to adhere.
Also, as I mentioned above, it concerns me that it seems they can't escape speaking as such representatives once they become famous as such. It's like a moral typecast.
Mark wrote: "Dobson, as the representative of an organization that clearly blends Christianity with family psychology, has more leeway."
Good point. Does Christianity include family psychology to the extent of FotF? Was Dobson a pastor prior to FotF? Was it wrong of him to start FotF?
Kevin
Kevin,
you make it sound like Dobson has trapped himself by his leadership association with Christianity. He should never comment conclusively on politics in public?
Dobson should never comment conclusively on politics in situations where he is seen as a representative of FotF. That would definitely include any audience that he has by virtue of his prominence as the head of FotF. So, it would include any national audience.
If, in theory, Dobson decides to join a local community organization in his area, and comment on politics in that public forum based on his years as a member of that community, that would be fine.
But, yes, when speaking to an audience that Dobson has only by virtue of his leadership at FotF, an audience that can only then think of him as a leader of FotF, he should always speak as the leader of FotF.
I'm not advocating some sort of "religious leaders have no freedom of speech" argument. I'm advocating that religious leaders, when speaking as representatives of their religious groups (either explicitly or implicitly), should comment carefully in light of that reality.
Or don't people actually evaluate his positions as we have?
Is this a serious question? I feel safe saying that the answer is "no".
Limiting discussion to only what Christianity (e.g. the Bible) explicitly includes seems to limit a lot more than just conclusive politics
Yes, but remember that I pointed out that the strict limitation applied only to pastors, who speak directly as representatives of the religion. And even pastors have some amount of gray area, since a large part of their job is to apply religious principles to current situations. Dobson falls into an even larger gray area, since he only represents Christianity by extension.
Dobson was not a pastor before becoming the head of FotF. He was a family psychologist. And, he has always been very explicit that he is not a theologian or pastor, but that his ministry at FotF is based on applying Christian principles to family life.
I don't think it was wrong for Dobson to start FotF. He didn't claim religious authority for his psychological ideas. He made it explicitly clear that his organization was presenting a particular blend of Christianity and family psychology. There's nothing wrong with that.
Dobson is going wrong more recently by not qualifying his political opinions in the same way. Neither Dobson or FotF qualifies their political endorsements by saying, "This flows out of a blend of Christianity and right-wing politics; I'm not speaking as a Christian leader, but as a political analyst."
Dobson also is going even more wrong more recently by giving public interviews on the national stage giving personal political endorsements (or anti-endorsements) of particular candidates with the silly "this is my personal view" disclaimer that, of course, gets lost in the soundbites. Dobson should not give personal political opinions on the national stage, since he can only be seen nationally as a representative of FotF.
Is this getting any more clear?
Mark
Mark,
Mark wrote: "Is this a serious question? I feel safe saying that the answer is "no"."
I apologize if my question sounded snarky. My intent was to ask about the followers's ability and responsibility to evaluate Dobson's statement themselves rather than needing protection from his "undue influence".
Mark wrote: "He made it explicitly clear that his organization was presenting a particular blend of Christianity and family psychology. There's nothing wrong with that."
Hypothetically, would it be acceptable if an already famous pastor had founded FotF as long as he maintained a similar disclaimer?
Mark wrote: "Is this getting any more clear?"
Slowly, but surely. :) Presently, I'm thinking that I place more emphasis on the audience's judgement rather than the leader's statements.
I also think it would be frustrating if I wanted to support FotF, but felt that FotFA or Dobson's other actions have unnecessarily tainted it. I don't see Dobson as doing something that is necessarily immoral in that case, though it does come with the consequence of alienating part of his following and fracturing what they may have otherwise deemed to be a good cause. Hmmm... so, actually, to them, it might very well be immoral.
Kevin
Kevin,
Hypothetically, would it be acceptable if an already famous pastor had founded FotF as long as he maintained a similar disclaimer?
I have no idea! That's firmly in gray area, so it depends on all kinds of specifics that I can't even properly imagine in a hypothetical.
Sorry!
Mark
I'm not sure expecting restraint in the political arena from politicians (and just about every issue can be framed in political terms, in which case just about anybody who expresses an opinion about just about anything is a "politician") is ever going to be workable.
We need to work at inculcating independent thought in the listeners and followers of these "charismatic" out-front personalities.
Of course, if those folks had some significant degree of independent thought and judgment, they wouldn't BE followers in the first place.
Stevie,
Thanks for joining in. I agree regarding inculcating independent thought and our difficulty in controlling politicking.
Nevertheless, I think it is appropriate to discuss the ethical behavior we expect from our leaders and why. At the very least, we have the power to ignore them and no longer follow them.
If we define "followers" by a lack of independent thought and judgment, I would agree with your final sentence. Perhaps it was poor usage on my part, but I did not intend to use it in that sense. In fact, I'm curious how many people would actually consider themselves followers in that sense.
Kevin
Post a Comment