Reflections on the elections

To start with, I'm going to blockquote a SojoMail I received from Jim Wallis:

Progressive faith did not lose this election by Jim Wallis Religion was a big factor in this election, and "moral values" were named as a key issue for voters in the exit polls. On the Republican side, George W. Bush talked comfortably and frequently about his personal faith and ran on what his conservative religious base called the "moral issues." On the Democratic side, Senator John Kerry invoked the New Testament story of the Good Samaritan, talked about the importance of loving our neighbors, and said that faith without works is dead - but only began talking that way at the very end of his campaign. We've now begun a real debate in this country over what the most important "religious issues" are in politics, and that discussion will continue far beyond this election. The Religious Right fought to keep the focus on gay marriage and abortion and even said that good Christians and Jews could only vote for the president. But many moderate and progressive Christians disagreed. We insisted that poverty is also a religious issue, pointing to thousands of verses in the Bible on the poor. The environment - protection of God's creation - is also one of our religious concerns. And millions of Christians in America believe the war in Iraq was not a "just war." So in this election, one side talked about the number of unborn lives lost each year, while the other pointed to the 100,000 civilian casualties in Iraq. But both are life issues - according to the Pope, for example, who opposes both John Kerry's views on abortion and George Bush's war policy. Some church leaders challenged both candidates on whether just killing terrorists would really end terrorism and called for a deeper approach. And 200 theologians, many from leading evangelical institutions, warned that a "theology of war emanating from the highest circles of government is also seeping into our churches." Clearly, God is not a Republican or a Democrat, as we sought to point out, and the best contribution of religion is precisely not to be ideologically predictable or loyally partisan but to maintain the moral independence to critique both the left and the right. It is now key to remember that our vision - a progressive and prophetic vision of faith and politics - was not running in this election. John Kerry was, and he lost. Kerry did not strongly champion the poor as a religious issue and "moral value," or make the war in Iraq a clearly religious matter. In his debates with George Bush, Kerry should have challenged the war in Iraq as an unjust war, as many religious leaders did - including Evangelicals and Catholics. And John Kerry certainly did not advocate a consistent ethic of human life as we do - opposing all the ways that life is threatened in our violent world. We didn't lose the election, John Kerry did, and the ways in which both his vision and the Democratic Party's are morally and politically incomplete should continue to be taken up by progressive people of faith. In a deeply polarized country, commentators reported that either political outcome would "crush" the hopes of almost half the population. So perhaps the most important role for the religious community will come now, when the need for some kind of political healing and reconciliation has become painfully clear. In the spirit of America's greatest religious leader, the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr., the religious community could help a divided nation find common ground by moving to higher ground. And we should hold ourselves and both political parties accountable to the challenge of the biblical prophet Micah to "do justice, love kindness, and walk humbly with your God."

For the record, I'm not sure if a candidate or a political movement can, or should, embody everything Wallis is talking about. I'm especially skeptical about the federal government's ability to relieve poverty and maintain environmental protection. Using the power of government to promote the Kingdom may end in causing more suffering than it relieves, such is the nature of government. Church history is full of those who attempted the moral transformation of society using the levers of government, often resulting in insidious results. Almost always there has been less tolerance in the end, and some kind of persecution for supposed heresy. Europe's worst wars prior to the 20th century were fought for religious reasons. Already we are in danger of identifying the Kingdom with the government to the detriment of our relations with other countries. Churches can be idealistic; states must be pragmatic. On the other hand, even speaking from a pragmatic perspective, if Democratic leaders fail to listen to what Wallis is saying they do so at their peril. This election makes it obvious that the Democrats' 2008 candidate can and should be an evangelical. Only an evangelical will identify with the majority of Americans going forward. The simple fact is that 11% of Democrats voted for Bush, while 6% of Republicans voted for Kerry, and the independents split in half in who they supported. The next Democratic candidate for president needs to win Ohio at least, and only an evangelical can do that. I don't think the person needs to be a southerner; I think southern culture and northern evangelicalism can identify with each other. Sorry, Democrats, Hillary won't fit the bill. Neither will John Kerry, again. Liberal democrats may not want to hear this. They have to live with it. The majority of voters cited "moral values" as the most important reason for their vote. (Did you?)

Of 13,531 voters surveyed by Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International, 22 percent cited moral values as the most important issue, 20 percent said the economy and jobs were the most important issues and 19 percent said terrorism was the most important issue.

The Democrats who voted for Bush did so because of moral values. To my chagrin, Iraq/war is not in the top three. As an evangelical, I can rejoice in these facts. While I still don't think the federal government should be telling the states how to run their moral lives, ending or modifying the current federal law that exists on moral issues - which has a liberal slant - would free the states to pursue moral issues as each of them sees fit. If Bush will agree to this, he will have followed the will of the majority without causing even more division in the country. I think Wallis' words are very wise, intelligent, and kind. I hope both sides listen to him and that our discussion of ethics is broadended, not narrowed for political interests. Those of you who are partisans should keep in mind that both parties have been designing their victory strategies around narrowly identifiable issues on purpose, so they can turn up the heat. The result is less light. Those on the religious right must remember Sojourner's call to broad ethics:

We believe that war - and our call to be peacemakers - is a religious issue. Do the candidates' policies pursue "wars of choice" or respect international law and cooperation in responding to real global threats? (Matthew 5:9)

We believe that truth-telling is a religious issue. Do the candidates tell the truth in justifying war and in other foreign and domestic policies? (John 8:32)

We believe that human rights - respecting the image of God in every person - is a religious issue. How do the candidates propose to change the attitudes and policies that led to the abuse and torture of Iraqi prisoners? (Genesis 1:27)

We believe that our response to terrorism is a religious issue. Do the candidates adopt the dangerous language of righteous empire in the war on terrorism and confuse the roles of God, church, and nation? Do the candidates see evil only in our enemies but never in our own policies? (Matthew 6:33, Proverbs 8:12-13 )

We believe that a consistent ethic of human life is a religious issue. Do the candidates' positions on abortion, capital punishment, euthanasia, weapons of mass destruction, HIV/AIDS-and other pandemics-and genocide around the world obey the biblical injunction to choose life? (Deuteronomy 30:19)

It is a two-way street; if our political discourse is going to be primarily secular, these issues are important to the churches, who have the responsibility of preaching these truths to those who will listen - but they not be held accountable for the results of something they cannot determine since theirs is a heavenly and not an earthly power. However, if our political discourse is going to be governed by religious content, especially scriptural content, it better include these positions as well. If not, the churches will be held accountable to God for having only a half-faithful practice. When brought before the judgment seat of Christ, the question will not be, "Were you a good and patriotic American?" but "Were you a good and faithful servant?" In my thinking, Bush must be especially careful going forward to not think the vote of evangelicals gives him the mandate to wage pre-emptive war however he sees fit, and continue to trample on human rights for the sake of the war on terror. Although I could forgive him for thinking this as long as most evangelicals have this point of view. To my non-religious or agnostic friends, this posting had a lot of religous content because the election had a lot of religious content. Can't continue to participate in the public discussion while relegating religion to the margins.