God and the Election

“God is not a Republican. Or a Democrat.” This is a “catch phrase” that Jim Wallis and the Sojourner community have been using for many years. And certainly it is a correct assessment of the political situation in the U.S.

But does God not care what policies the parties and their representatives promote? Is one party as good as the other in God’s eyes? And does it make no difference who Christians, or other people of faith, vote for?

Just before the election, some Christians were saying, “God is sovereign; no matter the outcome of the election, God is in control.” That, too, is doubtlessly true. But does that mean it makes no difference who (or which party) wins the elections—or that God causes the candidates/party God wishes to be in office to be victorious?

In his concession speech, Todd Akin, the beleaguered Senate candidate from Missouri, declared that “it’s particularly appropriate to thank God. He makes no mistakes and . . . is much wiser than we are. So I say, to God alone be the honor and the glory regardless of how He decides to organize history.”

Since Mr. Akin is a Calvinist, we can understand how he might think that the elections turned out in accordance with God’s sovereign will. But probably most of us who are not Calvinists are more likely to believe that the election results had far more to do with the free choice of the people who voted than by the sovereign “manipulation” of God.

(It is also quite likely that Mr. Akin lost his Senate race because of strongly negative voter reaction to his beliefs and statements rather than because of God causing his defeat.)

“Neither party is going to bring in the Kingdom of God,” someone wrote just before the election. I am sure that that also is an accurate statement. Any and all talk of human effort “bringing in” or “realizing” the Kingdom of God is erroneous.

And yet, Jesus surely meant it when he told his followers to pray, “Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.” The Kingdom of God is not just about a glorious future beyond human history. It is about God’s will being done, however incompletely or inadequately, in the here and now.

Thus, I have serious questions about a statement posted recently on an Anabaptist blog: “Neither party is nearer the Kingdom of [God] than the other.”

Since there is considerable difference between the party platforms, though, isn’t one is more nearly in keeping with what God wants (the “dream of God”) than the other?

In my judgment, which may or may not be accurate, I believe that the current Democratic platform better represents Kingdom values. So I voted for the Democrats on the national ticket not because they were Democrats, but because I believe their policies are more consistent with my understanding of the Kingdom of God.

Just one example: In the Kingdom of God surely the health needs of all persons will be taken care of. Even though there are some problems with it, I believe that what has derisively been dubbed “Obamacare” is a move in the right direction. Mr. Romney said he would repeal Obamacare his first day in office (which, of course, he couldn’t have done).

Although it is just one of many I could give, this is an example of how for me, and no doubt for many others, God (and God’s Kingdom) was related to the November 6 election.

How Can a Christian Be Pro-Choice?

In spite of what he said in August about "legitimate rape" and other controversial statements, Republican leaders are still (or again) supporting U. S. Representative Todd Akin in his Senate bid because he has voted the “right” way on selected House votes. That was the gist of a Facebook posting I made earlier this month.

Soon this response appeared under that FB posting: “My question is, what kind of Christian can possibly support abortion? That’s way beyond my comprehension.” That pointed question and statement caused me to think again about the issues surrounding the knotty question of abortion.

(The person who raised the question is the granddaughter of two of the finest people I have ever known; back in the 1950s they were core members of the first church I pastored, and I remember when she was born during that time.)

Here is my response to her pointed question, What kind of Christian can possibly support abortion?

(1) First, probably no Christian supports abortion in the sense of thinking that it is a good thing. All references to people, Christians or otherwise, as being pro-abortion are usually mistaken. It is much more accurate to say that they are pro-choice.

(2) Many Christians realize that we live in an imperfect world filled with sinful people. Thus, they can in good conscience condone abortions when women, in consultation with their doctors, think that there are compelling physical, emotional, or economic reasons why they should not continue a pregnancy. In such cases the abortive procedure should be done at an early stage in the pregnancy (preferably in the first trimester) and in a safe, supportive environment. Ideally, every pregnancy should be a wanted pregnancy, and every mother should be able to love, care for, and nourish her child(ren) adequately. But, sadly, we do not live in a perfect world.

(3) Most Christians, as well as most non-Christians, who are pro-choice confidently believe that personhood does not begin at conception but much later, probably not until the time of viability. Thus, abortions done early in the pregnancy are certainly not the same as murder, as the so-called pro-life people often charge. 

(4) Because abortion is not the “taking of human life” in any sense, many Christians (and others), believing in the inviolable personal freedom of all people, affirm the right of women to choose to end an unwanted pregnancy. That choice, of course, should not be made rashly or in a cavalier manner. Certainly a woman contemplating an abortion should talk with her doctor, her family, and, ideally, her pastor. But, still, the final choice should be hers. She should not be forced (by the government or anyone else) to continue an unwanted pregnancy.

(5) And then many Christians who would countenance abortion under the circumstances mentioned above believe that there are more important “pro-life” issues that need to be addressed, ones that are often overlooked, or even opposed, by many anti-abortion people—issues such as capital punishment and especially war, both of which are clearly the killing of human beings. They also believe that hunger and poverty are rampant causes of death, especially of young children, so impoverished women especially should not be forced to carry an unwanted child—or to resort to “coat hanger” abortions out of desperation.

So this is the kind of Christian who can “support” abortion, one who is certainly pro-life, but not “pro-birth” in every case.

Tips of the Slung

Every public speaker dreads them, but from time to time most make them anyway. I am referring to what are often called slips of the tongue. Or as Rev. William Archibald Spooner might say, tips of the slung.

William A. Spooner (1844-1930)

Spooner, who died August 29, 1930, was an Englishman whose name is given to the linguistic gaffes now known as spoonerisms. Born in London, Spooner became an Anglican priest and a scholar. During a 60-year association with Oxford University, he lectured in history, philosophy, and theology.

I have long enjoyed Spooner’s humorous statements and have often intentionally, and sometimes unintentionally, made similar ones. As I head toward the bathroom, sometimes I will say to June, “I’m going to shake a tower now.” Some time ago when I was eating a tasty dish that June had prepared, I said, “These puffed steppers sure are good!” (As you recognize, those are spoonerisms for take a shower and stuffed peppers).

Back in 1995, the Reader’s Digest published an article titled, “Reverend Spooner’s Tips of the Slung.” (The title of this posting as well as some of spoonerisms below have been taken from that article).

Spooner would have trouble speaking correctly when agitated by his students, it seems. He reportedly reprimanded one student for “fighting a liar” (lighting a fire) on campus. He complained to another, “You hissed my mystery lecture” (missed my history lecture), and said in disgust to yet another, “You have tasted two worms” (wasted two terms).

Spooner was also excited when Queen Victoria visited Oxford. He proposed a toast to “our queer old Dean” (dear old Queen).

Some of the goofs were made in Chapel: “Our Lord is a shoving leopard” (loving shepherd), he once intoned. Then officiating at a wedding, he prompted a hesitant bridegroom, “Son, it is now kisstomary to cuss the bride” (customary to kiss the bride).

And at the church he regularly attended, he said to someone sitting in the pew where he usually sat, “I believe you’re occupewing my pie. May I sew you to another sheet?”

Well, politicians may rarely utter spoonerisms, but they do make “tips of the slung” from time to time. On August 11 we were surprised to hear Mitt Romney introduce Paul Ryan as “the next President of the United States.” Although he quickly caught the mistake himself, in 2008 then-candidate Obama similarly introduced Joe Biden as the next President.

We shouldn’t make a big deal out of verbal gaffes, though. Most have no significance at all. Rather, we should be concerned about the clear and deliberate statements that politicians make.

On August 19, Rep. Todd Akin who is seeking election as a U.S. Senator from Missouri, made a statement about “legitimate rape.” This has been referred to as a “misstatement” and a “gaffe.” Perhaps it was, to a certain extent. But it seems clear that his opposition to abortion is absolute. Again in 2011, he and Vice-President nominee Ryan, among many others (all Republicans), were co-sponsors of “Sanctity of Human Life Act” (H.R.212), which declares that human life begins with fertilization, “at which time every human has all legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood.” No exception is made for rape or incest.

During these next two months of intense political campaigning, let’s laugh off the spoonerisms or other verbal goofs the candidates may make. But let’s give serious attention to what they say intentionally about important issues of the day (including, but certainly not limited to, abortion)—and then vote accordingly.

Who’s Interested in the Farm Bill?

Even though many people may not be particularly interested in the Farm Bill pending in the U.S. Congress, it is a very important matter that deserves the attention of all citizens.

Robert Gronski, the policy coordinator for the National Catholic Rural Life Conference, explains: “The Farm Bill has a profound impact on farming and nutrition. Three key things the multi-faced bill provides are: a safety net for farmers, incentives for conservation practices, and food assistance for low-income families” (Sojournersmagazine, August 2012).

I didn’t realize until I read Gronski’s article that “nearly 80 percent of the bill’s roughly $100 billion a year in spending goes to the food-assistance category, most notably to food stamps—the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program [SNAP], which now helps feed 46 million people in the U.S.”

Some Congresspersons, though, want to cut the funding of the farm bill, especially the amount earmarked for SNAP. Why was I not surprised to hear that?

The Republican-dominated House of Representatives has refused to pass the bill, although the Senate passed it back in June. Earlier this month, soon after Representative Paul Ryan was named as Romney’s choice for the Vice-President nomination, the President was in Iowa, and he chided Rep. Ryan for failing to vote for the farm bill.

On the Friday after the primary election, Claire McCaskill, U.S. Senator from Missouri, and U.S. Representative Todd Akin, who is seeking her Senate seat in November, met in Jefferson City where they both spoke to the Missouri Farm Bureau. When Rep. Akin was asked by a farmer why he has opposed the farm bill, which he also did not vote for in 2002 or 2007, he explained that the majority of the spending in the legislation goes to food stamps and other entitlement programs.

The current farm bill ends on September 30, and the House will likely not approve a new one before then. Many Representatives, such as Rep. Akin and especially those affiliated with the Tea Party, insist on substantial cuts to SNAP, even though that would deprive many people of necessary nutrition.

As do most conservative Republicans, Rep. Akins, who is a seminary graduate and an active churchman, says that it is up to individuals and churches to help the poor, not the government. But I wonder, would it even be possible for individuals and churches to do all that is necessary for all those in need?

For example, consider my home county, Worth County, Missouri, with a population of 2,150. (Yes, it’s a very small county.) There are now about 350 people in the county living below the poverty line. I assume that most of those get help from SNAP (food stamps). If the farm bill is not passed, or drastically cut as most Republicans seem to wish, will the churches of Worth County and other people of good will have the means to step in and provide assistance to those who need it?

Probably not.

Since it is such an important piece of legislation, affecting so many farmers and especially low-income people all across the nation, shouldn’t those of us who live in this country contact our Representatives and urge them to for vote the Farm Bill?