Should Christians concern themselves with the politics of the day?

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'"? ....

We Can't Build a More Perfect Union... or World: Getting back to Rendering Unto Caesar

Recently I made a comment to several military officers that we should not build our doctrine around the perfect scenario- we should write our doctrine reflecting the current reality or, better yet- the worse-case scenario. Specifically we were talking about how we seem to be operating more and more in cases wherein our strategy is unclear and our objectives are ambiguous. Even more upsetting is the lack of support and/or understanding for what we are doing from our populace. Instead of assuming we will get unambiguous guidance and a strategy that is clear and supported by our people, let's figure out, I argued, how we should act when we don't have those things. If we get those positive things- then our effort should be easier. In fact, we often train that way at the tactical level- the thought being that if you train for the worse, then if things are not as bad- then we should be fine.

Why don't we do the same for religion? Many religious folk talk a lot about how we need to make the Earth better and we need to work for peace. There are even many who insert their religion into their politics- I heard one lady on the radio say that the reason a bus monitor was abused by kids was that prayer had been taken out of school. Do we really want our nation to be guided by our faith? What about "rendering to Caesar"? If power corrupts, I'd think the last thing we would want is for our religion to hold political influence. Politics is all about compromise- but religion doesn't seem to be conducive to much compromise.

I think establishing a more perfect Earth and working to get our country to support our faith is similar to the military wishing for the perfect environment with which to carry out operations. I submit that no matter how much we fight to get prayer back in schools, abortion banned, and the ten commandments in courtrooms, the U.S.- and the Earth for that matter- will still have the same issues we have today. Why? Because of human nature. Humans seeking power (all of us) will twist whatever "works" to their own ends- whether it be religion or secularism. If an interest group can take a position of advantage- through either the victim mantle, a righteous position, or simple majority rule- then they will use it to their ends and their ends will eventually become corrupted through their ways and means. Religion is no different and, as we have seen over and over again, religious leaders are just as bad as secular ones.

Instead, I would not advocate inserting religion into politics. Practically speaking, there may be a time or a place where Christians are not the majority- and then what? But, philosophically, I think Christianity is at its best when it is the minority. When it is oppressed. Laughed-at. Even persecuted. Christianity starts turning very peculiar when it is the governing authority in an area. It was a religion that started during trying times- people actually faced much more hunger than they did obesity, subsistence living was the experience of most, and most religious folk faced some kind of persecution of one kind or another- to include death. Today the worst thing that can happen to most Christians in the U.S. is not getting to the restaurant on Sunday for lunch quicker than the church down the street.

I would also encourage us to "prepare for the worst" instead of trying to make things better. Because that assumes we can make things better. And I don't really see where God gave us the mission to make the Earth a perfect place. He wanted us to treat each other better, but I don't think that included setting up a theocracy- or even a republic that was conducive to religion. Instead of assuming we can have it perfect one day- let's assume that no matter what we do, the Earth will remain a place full of faults. That way we can turn our efforts towards that reality- instead of praying for things we should know will not take place. For instance, instead of praying for a certain politician to win, maybe pray for both sides to conduct themselves respectfully. Instead of praying for a person to recover from a disease, maybe pray for everyone who loves that person to be comforted. Things in life will continue to be bad- we cannot build a Tower of Babel on this Earth. Let's accept that and move on to the real business Jesus talked about: spiritual growth and development.