Pastoral Politics
05/05/07 09:10 AM
The definitions of "conservative" and "liberal" seem
to be rather fluid lately. In foreign affairs which
is conservative and which is liberal: isolationism or
intervention? Conceptually, leaving things alone
would seem more conservative than jumping into the
fray, but we all know that conservatives today tend
to be more interventionist than liberals (though
there are many exceptions).
The French have an election tomorrow. The candidate who wants to introduce some radical changes is considered "conservative" while the one who wants to pretty much preserve the status quo (that's French for "femme fatale") is viewed as the liberal. Meanwhile, "conservationists" are more often liberals than conservatives, which seems to defy etymology.
Generally, liberals want to see the government take on more responsibility for the well-being of the citizens while conservatives would prefer to be granted more freedom to care for themselves and others without government "meddling". Liberals see government programs, supported by mandatory taxation, as the simplest and surest way to meet human needs; conservatives fear that the unintended consequences of such programs will outweigh the good they may do as well as fearing letting too much power reside in one organization under the theory that power corrupts.
I'm painting with a broad brush, but my point is simply this: the liberal candidate for president of France would, if elected, be the best looking head-of-state in history (sorry about that, all you Margaret Thatcher groupies!).
No wait: my real point is this: The liberal-conservative conundrum, as brilliantly and concisely presented above, cannot be easily resolved by an appeal to Scripture. Few of us are completely socialistic or completely libertarian and the question of where to draw the lines (more government or less) must generally be resolved on pragmatic grounds. Christians should not claim divine authority for their positions on whether or not we should invade Iran, raise taxes or ban automatic weapons, etc.
I happen to be a conservative on most political issues. But my political opinions are just my opinions. A lot of pastors and other "Christian leaders" don't seem to remember that. Why does it matter? Because the Gospel is of life and death importance, is the Word of God, not of man, and we need to be absolutely clear on when we are speaking for God and when we are presenting our own views. Blurring the lines between the two will not convince any political liberals to become conservatives (or vice versa) but it will convince unbelievers that our views about God and salvation are politically motivated rather than divinely sanctioned.
Sometimes, on social issues such as abortion, we CAN speak for God. But on most economic and international issues, we can only speak for ourselves. Make sure the people you talk to know the difference, and know that YOU know the difference!
For information purposes only - French election:
Liberal babe vs. Conservative non-babe:
The French have an election tomorrow. The candidate who wants to introduce some radical changes is considered "conservative" while the one who wants to pretty much preserve the status quo (that's French for "femme fatale") is viewed as the liberal. Meanwhile, "conservationists" are more often liberals than conservatives, which seems to defy etymology.
Generally, liberals want to see the government take on more responsibility for the well-being of the citizens while conservatives would prefer to be granted more freedom to care for themselves and others without government "meddling". Liberals see government programs, supported by mandatory taxation, as the simplest and surest way to meet human needs; conservatives fear that the unintended consequences of such programs will outweigh the good they may do as well as fearing letting too much power reside in one organization under the theory that power corrupts.
I'm painting with a broad brush, but my point is simply this: the liberal candidate for president of France would, if elected, be the best looking head-of-state in history (sorry about that, all you Margaret Thatcher groupies!).
No wait: my real point is this: The liberal-conservative conundrum, as brilliantly and concisely presented above, cannot be easily resolved by an appeal to Scripture. Few of us are completely socialistic or completely libertarian and the question of where to draw the lines (more government or less) must generally be resolved on pragmatic grounds. Christians should not claim divine authority for their positions on whether or not we should invade Iran, raise taxes or ban automatic weapons, etc.
I happen to be a conservative on most political issues. But my political opinions are just my opinions. A lot of pastors and other "Christian leaders" don't seem to remember that. Why does it matter? Because the Gospel is of life and death importance, is the Word of God, not of man, and we need to be absolutely clear on when we are speaking for God and when we are presenting our own views. Blurring the lines between the two will not convince any political liberals to become conservatives (or vice versa) but it will convince unbelievers that our views about God and salvation are politically motivated rather than divinely sanctioned.
Sometimes, on social issues such as abortion, we CAN speak for God. But on most economic and international issues, we can only speak for ourselves. Make sure the people you talk to know the difference, and know that YOU know the difference!
For information purposes only - French election:
Liberal babe vs. Conservative non-babe:
|
