As we get closer to the election, it seems like a good time to refresh our understanding of political theology. I spent some time with my friend Amy to field her questions. Please feel free to post your comments and questions at the end of the blog. Peace.
Amy: So, what is political theology, anyway?
Me: Well, theology is the study of God. Now that could be Allah, or Yahweh, or Vishna, etc. In our context, we approach theology from a Judeo-Christian perspective. The word “political” derives from polis or city or citizen. So political theology involves the study of God by a citizen.
Amy: So, what does that mean for us in American Society?
Me: We can think of political theology as a 3-part process:
Thinking about our faith related to current events,
speaking/acting about issues publicly,
to as broad an audience as possible.
Amy: Can you give me an example?
Me: Well, let’s look at the federal government’s response to the COVID-19. Without allowing for your partisan affiliation, in general, how do you think the government is handling the spread of the virus?
Amy: It’s terrible.
Me: Okay, now how does this concern or engage you from your faith perspective?
Amy: I think as Christians, we have a responsibility to do whatever we can to help each other, and to minimize or stop the spread.
Me: Why? What is your scriptural basis for saying that?
Amy: Well because Jesus always called on us to love one another, to do unto others, as we would have them do unto us.
Me: Ah, yes, the Golden Rule. How are we failing the Golden Rule, in your opinion?
Amy: For the governors who are trying to impose restrictions to limit the spread, opponents insist on opening up society as if it were pre-COVID. There seems to be little concern about the deadly nature of this virus. It has taken about 220,000 people’s lives in the USA, and it is still spreading.
There is no sense of solidarity across the board, no universal care for one’s neighbor. I think that our failure to come together to protect each other is a failure to follow Christ’s teaching.
Me: What action have you been taking?
Amy: I’ve been writing and calling my federal and state representatives, but I don’t feel like that it is enough. But, I don’t know where to take these questions and concerns on a local level.
Me: What if you could go to a private Facebook group to talk over ideas and learn what others do on various issues?
Amy: That would be great! Is there something like that?
Me: Yes, I have created a private Facebook group called “Faith-Based Advocates.” You have to request to join and agree to some particular rules of conduct. I want this to be a safe space where concerned citizens of faith can collaborate. It’s hanging out at the “political theology water cooler,” if you will.
Amy: Okay, great! I am going to sign up for this because I’m frustrated. I’m so disgusted with the way things are, and I want to do something, but the issues are so complex, and I am just one person. What if people get partisan and disrespectful?
Me: I will not tolerate belligerent, hateful, or intimidating behavior, that’s why we have the rules, and I will remove someone at the first sign of not behaving. We are adults, and we are going to engage in “civil discourse.” If you want to learn more about civil discourse, click here.
We need a place to examine the moral response to current events. Presiding Bishop Curry said something in a recent address. He said, “Partisan neutrality cannot be confused with moral neutrality.” I think he is absolutely right.
Check out our new, free mini-series, “The Basics of Faith-Based Public Advocacy,” offered through Province V (Midwest) of the Episcopal Church and me! You have to register first.
Amy: Here’s something that is bothering me. When we speak at a protest or testify before a governmental committee about our faith-based concerns, aren’t we trying to establish our religion as superior?
Me: It’s an excellent question. Congress is prohibited from establishing a superior religion. So we aren’t part of “Congress,” unless we are an elected senator or representative.
When we speak as individuals or as members of faith-based organizations, we have broad protections under the First Amendment. There are some necessary limits to what charities can do and say, especially during an election. For example, a church cannot endorse a political candidate.
However, a church can host a debate assuming all of the candidates are invited to participate. If a candidate declines, the debate can still go on with the remaining candidates.
The debate cannot be designed to endorse any candidate or to promote a political party. It must be designed to provide information to the audience about the candidates’ position on the issues. Each candidate must get the same amount of time, and all candidates must field the same questions. It’s common sense.
Amy: But if a church is hosting the forum, is that some form of establishing a religion?
Me: No, because everyone receives an invitation, answers the same questions, and has the same time allotments. Partisanship has no place. Ideologies will emerge in the candidates’ answers, but we expect that.
These rules apply to all candidates, whether Muslim, Sikh, Christian, Jewish, or no tradition. All faith-based voices, all voices, are equal under the First Amendment. All have a right to participate in the debate.
We are not trying to establish progressive Christianity as the supreme religion of the nation, or any other faith tradition for that matter.
Our goal is to provide equal access and opportunity for all voices to convey their message. Hopefully, in bringing our various perspectives to the public square, “in open debate, we shall arrive at the truth,” as philosopher John Stuart Mill has taught us from a non-secular perspective.
And, Moses and Jesus taught us to stand up against injustice. That’s our job, too.
