What if you could solve the most prescient and important issue of the day with a compromise? Do the ends ever justify the means? I asked this question today during Sunday School: "if you could solve THE most important issue of the day that you felt was the most pressing and all you had to do was to agree to carry out drone strikes against terrorists that would kill about 100 really nasty terrorists a year and the only "collateral damage" would be about 20 of their family members- would you do it?" The scenario assumed that without authorizing the strikes, you wouldn't have enough political capital to push through legislation to solve the very important issue.
Some of the issues: education, healthcare, spiritual health, and government gridlock. Others could have included the economy, the gap between the poor and the rich, crime, racism, Global Warming. Some of the class were okay with drone strikes regardless- so it wasn't much of a choice for them. Others were okay with drone strikes if it solved their identified "prime problem". Some were not okay with drone strikes or any kind of killing of innocents- no matter the cause. One person remarked that this kind of compromise issue was why they didn't vote and they further remarked that Jesus would not have used drone warfare.
And that last comment is a very important one: politicians, by design, have to make compromises. At some level the ends DO justify the means for them, or nothing gets done. In fact, some would argue the current problem is that the extremes of the two parties in the U.S. rarely can justify the means any longer- and thus compromise is impossible.
But, the reason that last comment is important is because Jesus was not interested in political change. "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and render unto God what is God's" has long separated the two worlds for most of the West and allowed political life to largely exist outside of one religious dogma. Unlike Islam, which describes political life as part of one's religious life, Christianity separated the two. Jesus was interested in saving souls- he was not interested in solving political problems. He did not overthrow the emperor or the king. He did not fix the gap between the rich and the poor. He even advised slaves on how to be good slaves.
And, thus, one must ask whether churches and Christians in general should be "political"- and, if so, how. Should churches take up positions against or for homosexual marriage? Should churches advise people how to vote? Should churches push for more (or less) taxes or free healthcare?
I personally think that churches are in a rough position. Churches to a large extent exist to offer things to their community. Some give food to the poor. Most have ceremonial functions that tie people together, remind others of the past, or bring others spiritual comfort. Many, if not most, assist their members in rough times. And many- if not all- send out emissaries to spread the message and bring in converts. All of these activities and more can lead an institution like a church to favor certain political positions. Some may even think that their political positions are backed by- if not specific Gospel passages- at least some implied ones.
But I do also think that churches have to be careful. Jesus was under no mission to make Earthly life better for Christians or those who were suffering. His focus was on the Afterlife. He seemed to take for granted that "the human condition" was something necessary, something inherently "not fixable", or something that was beyond what He was called on to accomplish.
I often think that systemic problems are not "fixable" by humans. That the nature of humans and life creates problems inherently and thus most solutions will either make things worse or create more problems. Feeding starving children in Africa, for instance, while a noble endeavor, can lead to increased diseases, war, births, and even more starvation. Some have argued that by our own charity we arrest the development of homegrown solutions- something that guarantees more suffering in the long-term. Because we cannot easily trace these kinds of causes, it is easier for us to just give money and hope for the best, feeling good because we "did something".
If human nature and life itself is full of these intractable systemic problems that are only "fixable" through pain, time, and internal development- oftentimes 2.9 steps back for every 3 steps forward (or maybe its 1 step forward and 1 step back- we just think things are "progressing"...)- then maybe church folk should be more wary about approaching political problems from a Christian position. And maybe all Christians should be at least as worried- if not much more- about folks' spiritual needs than they are their Earthly needs. This would get Christians- and possibly churches- out of the business of politics and more in the business of saving souls.
Of course, that begs the question- "what is 'saving souls'"? ....
Some of the issues: education, healthcare, spiritual health, and government gridlock. Others could have included the economy, the gap between the poor and the rich, crime, racism, Global Warming. Some of the class were okay with drone strikes regardless- so it wasn't much of a choice for them. Others were okay with drone strikes if it solved their identified "prime problem". Some were not okay with drone strikes or any kind of killing of innocents- no matter the cause. One person remarked that this kind of compromise issue was why they didn't vote and they further remarked that Jesus would not have used drone warfare.
And that last comment is a very important one: politicians, by design, have to make compromises. At some level the ends DO justify the means for them, or nothing gets done. In fact, some would argue the current problem is that the extremes of the two parties in the U.S. rarely can justify the means any longer- and thus compromise is impossible.
But, the reason that last comment is important is because Jesus was not interested in political change. "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and render unto God what is God's" has long separated the two worlds for most of the West and allowed political life to largely exist outside of one religious dogma. Unlike Islam, which describes political life as part of one's religious life, Christianity separated the two. Jesus was interested in saving souls- he was not interested in solving political problems. He did not overthrow the emperor or the king. He did not fix the gap between the rich and the poor. He even advised slaves on how to be good slaves.
And, thus, one must ask whether churches and Christians in general should be "political"- and, if so, how. Should churches take up positions against or for homosexual marriage? Should churches advise people how to vote? Should churches push for more (or less) taxes or free healthcare?
I personally think that churches are in a rough position. Churches to a large extent exist to offer things to their community. Some give food to the poor. Most have ceremonial functions that tie people together, remind others of the past, or bring others spiritual comfort. Many, if not most, assist their members in rough times. And many- if not all- send out emissaries to spread the message and bring in converts. All of these activities and more can lead an institution like a church to favor certain political positions. Some may even think that their political positions are backed by- if not specific Gospel passages- at least some implied ones.
But I do also think that churches have to be careful. Jesus was under no mission to make Earthly life better for Christians or those who were suffering. His focus was on the Afterlife. He seemed to take for granted that "the human condition" was something necessary, something inherently "not fixable", or something that was beyond what He was called on to accomplish.
I often think that systemic problems are not "fixable" by humans. That the nature of humans and life creates problems inherently and thus most solutions will either make things worse or create more problems. Feeding starving children in Africa, for instance, while a noble endeavor, can lead to increased diseases, war, births, and even more starvation. Some have argued that by our own charity we arrest the development of homegrown solutions- something that guarantees more suffering in the long-term. Because we cannot easily trace these kinds of causes, it is easier for us to just give money and hope for the best, feeling good because we "did something".
If human nature and life itself is full of these intractable systemic problems that are only "fixable" through pain, time, and internal development- oftentimes 2.9 steps back for every 3 steps forward (or maybe its 1 step forward and 1 step back- we just think things are "progressing"...)- then maybe church folk should be more wary about approaching political problems from a Christian position. And maybe all Christians should be at least as worried- if not much more- about folks' spiritual needs than they are their Earthly needs. This would get Christians- and possibly churches- out of the business of politics and more in the business of saving souls.
Of course, that begs the question- "what is 'saving souls'"? ....
