Beth and I took a walk on the beach this morning. It's pretty amazing what a quiet walk on the beach can do for an unquiet soul.I've been thinking a lot about the Faith Forum that Saddleback Church hosted this past Saturday night.
First, let me admit that I didn't watch it. I watched the Olympics.
I didn't want to watch it. I'm aggravated by forums like this and by the whole increased role of faith in political life. I think bringing faith into the political arena inevitably distorts--by flattening out or watering down--faith so that it "fits" into the gamesmanship of politics.
Basically, I think that when faith gets introduced into politics, faith loses.
This article from Time Magazine on McCain and Obama's responses to Pastor Rick Warren's question on abortion from the Saddleback forum highlights one of the problems with bringing faith into a campaign. Warren asked Obama about abortion and Obama's response was an attempt at a nuanced take on the agonizing moral dilemma that an unplanned pregnancy presents a woman. When I heard it excerpted on a news program yesterday, I thought Obama sounded wishy-washy. He hedged and hemmed, and never said that abortion is wrong. It was honest, but evasive. McCain's answer was a clearly stated opposition to abortion--and yet McCain's answer was overly simplistic and made for sound bytes--he utterly failed to do any kind of justice to the profound issues involved in discerning how to allocate "rights" to embryos.
So who wins here? The guy who tries to show a grasp of moral nuance and sounds evasive and indecisive? Or the guy who tries to show moral clarity and sounds like a puppet repeating talking points?
Here are a couple of tentative conclusions I draw from the Saddleback conversation:
1) Democratic politics thrives on the appearance of clear, strong, decisive leadership; ie, politics plays on the surface (btw, so does a lot of religion). The media--the way we learn about our candidates--ALSO loves simple, clear statements. Any candidate who attempts to express nuance looks indecisive and shifty and weak.
2) Asking candidates for public office to make statements about faith forces them to flatten their faith. Example: Rick Warren asked each candidate to describe what a relationship with Jesus means for them. I winced at the very question. Ask me the same thing and I'll talk to you for an hour. I would HATE to have to put an answer to that question into a palatable one or two-sentence answer.
A few months ago, Hillary Clinton, in a similar forum for Democratic candidates, was asked by journalist Jon Meacham why God allows suffering. Huh? In a political forum? Got a semester? A lifetime? How can you answer that question in 60 seconds without either sounding stupid, naive, or dismissive?
I just think that the candidates (and the listening public) lose when they're forced to make substantive faith declarations in a made-for-TV format.
3) Many Christians are more than willing to solicit support by trading out the same currency as politicians: short, reductionist, absolutizing points that appear "strong" and yet reduce irreducibly complex questions about God to one-sentence statements.
Political campaigns play on surfaces, appearances, and sound bytes--a fact that is underscored by television media's appetite for the same. Faith, if it is to have any utility at all in the modern world as a dialogue partner with politics, needs to be an antidote to oversimplification by remaining committed to depth, richness, and complexity. When faith and politics mix in today's world, I can't help but believe that faith loses.
I'm on vacation and don't want to write about this anymore. But I'd appreciate any feedback on this topic.
The The Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858 are a lot to chew on........................
ReplyDeleteI think if I had to hear Obama (even given his great speaking skills) speak for an hour, and then listen to Mccain and his response for an hour and a half- I would shoot myself.
HOWEVER, cannot there be a middle ground? I tire of this snappy, sound byte comeback thing that politics has sunk to. It seems if you answer a question with more than a "yes" or "no", you are seen as shady, or dumb. I don't need verbose, speeches, but I want the answer from the man who will lead the country to be thought out. I do not want some 30 second cutesy rejoinder. I also do not like religion becoming the most important aspect in whom we pick to lead the country. If we truly have freedom of religion, and you can worship as you choose.....why does it matter what the president thinks of Jesus? God should not be on the ballot, but it seems He always is these days.