Same-Sex Marriage, Obama, and Christian Justice

This past week was a milestone for same-sex marriage, both bad and good. On Tuesday, May 8th, voters in the state of North Carolina passed a constitutional amendment (called Amendment One) that bans same-sex marriage. Then yesterday, May 9th, the President of the United States announced that he endorses same-sex marriages. Among other things, the reasoning he gave was religious:

The thing at root that we think about is, not only Christ sacrificing himself on our behalf, but it’s also the golden rule — you know, treat others the way you would want to be treated, and I think that’s what we try to impart to our kids, and that’s what motivates me as president.

A plethora of blogs and articles on both sides of the debate gave attention to these developments and I am sure more will come. As the debate (some would call it a battle) rages on, it is interesting that the conservatives, predictably, evoke the language of biblical authority. Some more nuanced conservatives, like Collin Hansen in “How to Win the Public on Homosexuality“, would point out that the issue isn’t merely homosexuality being a sin, but that it is idolatry, that is, fulfilling our desires inordinately is displeasing to God. Another conservative pastor, Kevin DeYoung, blogs “Five Reasons Christians Should Continue to Oppose Gay Marriage” to enumerate the reasons why Christians should continue to contend the legalization of gay marriage.

On the other side of the debate are Christians who evoke the language of love and peace. It may seem at first glance like a watered down argument of tolerance, but there are those who have very thoughtful, biblically legitimate positions on the issue. Jared Byas blogs “I Still Stand as an Evangelical for Gay Marriage” with some very compelling points to which the conservative side should at least give ear. Others who fall in this camp claim that the culture wars themselves are harmful to the Christian witness. Rachel Held Evans writes the very read-worthy blog entry “How to Win a Culture War and Lose a Generation” claiming the negative affects of politicizing the issue of homosexuality, she writes:

We are tired of fighting, tired of vain efforts to advance the Kingdom through politics and power, tired of drawing lines in the sand, tired of being known for what we are against, not what we are for.

And when it comes to homosexuality, we no longer think in the black-at-white categories of the generations before ours. We know too many wonderful people from the LGBT community to consider homosexuality a mere “issue.” These are people, and they are our friends. When they tell us that something hurts them, we listen. And Amendment One hurts like hell.

The danger that this second camp falls into is to argue from the lines of emotionalism (which Evans almost does), that is, to say opposing same-sex marriage is mean and mean people are never good Christian witnesses, so we should stop opposing same-sex marriage. As good as it sounds, this is a flawed argument, as opposing most culturally normalized sin is inevitably mean but necessary, and Hansen is right in that this line of argument replaces biblical authority with our very volatile emotions. But as much as I understand Hansen and DeYoung’s wariness and point that homosexuality is a sin, they do not understand that legalization of same-sex marriage is not exactly the same. And thus, I must personally side with Evans and Byas, but not because it is mean to be anti-gay marriage. But because of what Byas hints at, concerning Christian justice, in point one of his current blog entry:

I know it is hard to grasp, but this matter has nothing to do with whether or not homosexuality is a sin. If it does, then you are probably being inconsistent since there are lots of things that Christians consider “sinful” that they do not legislate against. For instance, if God wants us as a nation to live by his laws, why are we okay supporting the freedom of religion? Shouldn’t we be out trying to ban other religions? If we are okay with freedom of religion,which is a law that basically mandates that our country allow for idolatry (according to the Christian), aren’t we being hypocritical?

I am still not for same-sex marriage, but I am not for Amendment One. If I could have it my way, I think it is wrong to put into law either banning or legalizing of such a notion. In a sense, the government should stay out of it, but as we do not live in an idealistic world, I think that Christian justice calls for allowing same-sex unions (I am still uncomfortable of calling it marriage). Christians are not only called to evangelize, but our actions are to seal, in a sense, our message. Our actions are to viscerally convey that our message is true. How to do that is not homogeneous, but I know it is not marching to vote for a gay marriage ban and celebrating it. The co-existence of diversity is possible because of justice, and justice requires, like Evans says, the washing of feet, the feet of our friends, the feet of our so-called ‘enemies’. Because isn’t that what our Lord did for wretches like us?

Obama, Yogurt, and Journalism

I have, for a long time, had a secret desire to be a journalist. Travel the world, get paid for writing (short pieces of writing), meeting influential people, but with all the imagined glamour of that career, journalism too has a daily grind involved that I am not so keen on. So I continue vicariously feeding my secret desires by reading and watching the morning news, and today, I sat in front of the tube watching yogurt be split on President Obama’s leg.

My immediate reaction was, “Why the heck are they reporting on this? Don’t they have anything better to talk about?” But then I immediately caught myself, “what’s so wrong with news such as this?” Isn’t a world where we only have to report such incidents the world for which we are striving? reporting? I always remember the line in Michael Moore’s Bowling for Columbine documentary where they compared the docile Canadian news to the violence-filled American counterpart. The line exclaimed by the newscaster still is fresh in my mind, “New speedbumps!”

So I hope that our news is filled more with such reporting, not as a guise to the events that need attention out there, but in hopes that it will be reflective of the realities of the world. It is probably a vain hope, but I think it is better to hope than not. Or better yet, we can combine important news with some levity, which is brilliantly accomplished, impromtu, by another president of these United States.

Who did you vote for? No…. How did you vote?

During this year’s presidential campaign, I occasionally asked friends for whom they were going to vote. The common response I received, with a few exceptions, was, “Why? That’s a very personal question.” Now, at first, this response puzzled me. The concept that a choice involving the public arena was a private issue was a bit foreign, but eventually I understood that there were personal reasons such as fear of heated debates, lack of a desire (or strength) to defend one’s choice. So I stopped asking. Well, that is, until after election day.

As I suspected, people were a bit more open after than before election day. People who cast their vote for Obama proudly told me for whom they voted, probably conscious of the fact that their vote helped bring about a monumental moment in American history. Those who voted for McCain obviously in a disappointed tone told me who they supported on election day. Then there were some, no just a few, who still refused to tell me their vote. And this time it wasn’t because “it was a personal question” but rather it was because they were in a position not to endorse a candidate, meaning they think they have a great sphere of influence and don’t want to sway voters. Now, pastors (or religious leaders) do this quite often and I think it wise that they do. It is wise to let individuals come to a decision of their own on who they will vote for without authoritarian influence which mostly likely will override or cause neglect to the research of issues and candidates, and if endorsement of a particular candidate is done in the name of Christianity (i.e. “If you’re Christian, you should vote for….”) then those religious leaders have not only committed an unwise act but have failed as a leader. But I wonder about after election day. Is it ok for a religious leader to disclose, post-election day, for whom they cast their vote? I suppose there still is a danger for misinterpretation, for people to say, “Oh that candidate must have been the right choice according to my religion since my leader chose them” but the possibility of misinterpretation will always exist no matter the situation or circumstance. I want to say that it is ok for a religious leader to disclose their choice of vote after the election and in some sense, I think it better that they do do so. To keep their choice veiled, post election, I think, falsely puts too much weight on their sphere of influence and the importance of one election in history. The first builds an unhealthy culture that may give too much influence to the leader and erroneously puts them on a pedestal and the second fails to recognize the place of one election in terms of effecting change, no matter how monumental, in the scope of eternal history. Mark Driscoll, in his blog entry (In God We Do Not Trust), helps us to see the correct scope of presidential elections in terms of fulfillment of hope and effecting change. So to teach thus as leaders I think, after the election, a nuance disclosure (with education) is more favorable than silence.

This then brings me to raise something in the very same blog mentioned above. Driscoll rightly analyzes why people are so hopeful (falsely, he says) in a presidential elect to solve the problems of the world. I agree completely, but I am not somehow completely satisfied. I feel his blog correctly orients us to realize the cause of the problems of this world and where the ultimate solution lies, but it lacks something. For a moment I think maybe it’s unavoidable to leave out but then, I come to my sense and realize that it is important to at least attempt to answer the question, “How do Christian engage in politics?” Or maybe the better way to phrase the question for some would be, “How do you participate in the redeeming of politics?” I don’t think disengagement is the answer. Voting is a good thing and we are, at least socially, responsible to cast a ballot. It is clearly wrong to not vote on the basis of apathy or sloth, but even to not vote because neither candidate is favorable to oneself, seems borderline disinterest. Then, if to withhold your ballot is irresponsible then what is responsible voting for a religious person? Are religion and politics irreconcilable? No, that’s probably not the right question. So then, how are we to vote in such a way that participates in the redemption of politics? It certainly doesn’t seem to be the method of gang mentality that Chris Rock (in the HBO special, Never Scared) mentions, which is to vote solely according to party alignment. I think we threw that option out the window a couple paragraphs ago. Then would it be to participate in, as John Piper explores the difficulty of voting while juggling many issues, ’One-Issue Politics’ (One-Issue Politics, One-Issue Marriage, and the Humane Society) where he considers the validity of eliminating a candidate from your possible choices based on your commitment to one issue? Possibly. Noah Toly seems to offer another nuanced answer using the story in 2 Samuel 6 (or 1 Chronicles 13) about Uzzah and the Ark of the Covenant (Evangelicalism, Realpolitik and the Gospel). He suggests that, “not only at the substance of our political commitments, but also at the style of our public engagement because in it, the medium is the message. The form communicates where we’ve placed our hope.” True, yet still not a tangible method of engagement that I can clearly grasp. Am I erred to look for a tangible way (of voting)?

Quite honestly, I do not know if I have an answer, but one thing that does come to mind which I believe points us (or at least myself) in the right direction of exploration is to explore ‘wisdom’. Once we know what wisdom is and if we channel our interests and passion for politics in wisdom, then I think we’re stepping forward in the right direction. I don’t think religion and politics is incompatible, rather it must necessarily be considered together. Like Jesus famously replied, “Then give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.” (NIV)

Emotionalism in Politics?

Usually I get annoyed when I listen to Republican politicians talk about economics. Mostly because I don’t agree with the general Republican economic ideology of “freer market the better” (This is partly due to the fact that I’m not an economics expert and to me an income tax cut for less than 250,000 just makes more sense, but if you care to enlighten me, I’m always willing to learn). For the record though, just because I am against Republican economics I do not consider myself a Democrat. I’m registered as non-partisan and do not align myself automatically with the democratic party. But coming back to the subject at hand, I was listening to NPR’s Radiotimes with Marty Moss-Coane and she was hosting two political consultant/analysts to discuss Obama’s 30-min Infomercial: Dan Payne, a Boston area media consultant who has worked for Democratic candidates and Todd Domke, a Boston area Republican political analyst, public relations strategist, and author.

Surprisingly I wasn’t getting annoyed at Todd the Republican but more at Dan the Democrat. I was annoyed at Dan the Democrat because the comments he made were rather reactionary and seemingly filled with emotion. Todd the Republican commented in the discussion with a very wide-viewed encompassing manner. He would give credit to Obama in his political strategy where he thought commendation was required and yet he would try to be critical when necessary. Dan the Democrat just seemed to want to endorse Obama with his comments and defend any accusations that would arise against the Democratic candidate. Now I know that I cannot stereotype neither Democrats nor Republicans as more or less reactionary, that has to be a case-by-case analysis. But I wonder then, if it is valid to question the place of emotionalism in politics, and in turn, if it does have a place, is my annoyance at the ‘emotional’ reactionary comments by Dan the Democrat invalid? At least in the arena I am familiar with, i.e religion and theology, emotionalism has been wrongly downplayed probably since the Enlightenment. But more and more scholars and pastors are indicating that, in the right manner, emotion has a crucial, even necessary, place in religion. Then what of politics and emotion. Can we be stirred by emotion in deciding our candidate or political alignment? Or is it more human to truncate emotion from our political life?

Todd the Republican commented interestingly that when he was watching the Obama 30-min Infomercial, though he doesn’t agree with the Democratic candidate, he found himself being stirred and motivated from the effect of the music. He didn’t say the use of music was manipulative but he didn’t affirm that its affect was an essential part in political decision. We all are emotionally affected by issues that are important to us, and to react emotionally doesn’t seem illegitimate. So maybe the question of whether emotionalism is valid in politics is not as important. Maybe the better question is does our emotionalism impede our ability to see the other side? To honestly consider the opposing view, learn and critic in a constructive manner? Yeah, maybe we’re too quick to state our opinions, maybe we should learn how to listen more. As Augustine once wisely said, “Hear the other side.”