"I'm not going tell you who to vote for, but if you vote for this particular person, I question your salvation. I'm sorry."
I'm not going to post who he was talking about, because it really doesn't matter. (If you want to know, just read the article. Hey, you might have voted for him! Also, if you do, keep in mind that this is the rather liberal Huffington Post) Just the mere notion that people might be voting out of fear to save their own personal eternal hindquarters instead of for the good of the people of their country and the world really makes me queasy. I wish I could say that it was just this one particular pastor, but I have heard the same things in person coming from pastors at churches I have been to. To think some pastors think that they can make people vote one way or another with stuff like this! I just wish they weren't so right.
And how about this:
"I hate criticisms towards the President, because it's like criticisms towards the pastor -- it's almost like, it's not going to get you anywhere, you know, except for hell. That's what it'll get you."
As a Christian, I have to say, this is not what salvation is about! God gave us salvation so that we could do the right thing (or at least try to, to the best of our ability) without worrying about gaining someone's approval, and without the weight of the mistakes of the past dragging us down. This is what I believe. Salvation was never meant to be earned. It was given first so that everything else we do could be a response in gratitude and goodwill and grace, not a duty or a debt. (I assure you, alliteration absolutely accidental)
So before my God, I will say that this election, I will make my choice and vote for the candidate that will best serve the world and all its people with the gifts that the United States has been given, regardless of what it means for my personal salvation. Why can I say this? Because, God, you did the same in Jerusalem 2000 years ago.
Religious people everywhere, have faith, be a part of your religious community, listen critically to your pastors and councilors, but when it comes to thinking, remember that God gave you your own mind too.
note: yes, this is Pastor Ed Kalnins from the childhood church of Rep. VP candidate Gov. Sarah Palin. But this post is about the pastor, and salvation and politics, and not Gov. Palin. I like to believe that anyone we would put in the candidacy is fully capable of thinking for themselves. Same goes for Sen. Barack Obama and Pastor Jeremiah Wright. Evaluate them yourselves on the merits of their own thoughts and actions.
12 comments:
I think your interpretation of his statement might be a bit off--I read it to mean that he considers the "particular person" to represent core values that contradict the Christian ethic.
If that's true, then the real problem is that he's actively vilifying the person he's talking about, equating political position with morality, and --which, annoyingly, is exactly what the Republican political strategists wanted when they identified Evangelical Christians as a key voting demographic back around 1987.
In general, it annoys me that the church is being used...outright used for political means.
I see what you mean, and I agree, that's probably what the pastor meant. But we cannot ignore the underlying mindset that, as you said, equates politics with morality.
And further, we cannot ignore the (insidious) effect that this has on this pastor's audience, which I am sure he would have been aware of. He questioned the morality of people that would vote for that candidate, not the values of the candidate himself. And throwing the word salvation in there is just playing dirty. If he things candidate x contradicts the Christian ethic, why not just say so?
It's more about the attitude than the particular pastor. I've seen it so many times in churches where the pastor tells the congregation of their moral responsibility to align on some issue, and then says nothing of the morality of the issue itself. At this point, it's the Christan Country Club.
And if we want to get into theology, he has absolutely NO right to question someone's salvation, especially to manipulate them.
And to even suggest that salvation has anything to do with how you vote egregiously contradicts the Christian ethic.
And when I say it's what he meant, I mean: that's what he meant to say, but I suspect that's not all he meant to convey.
Also, oops:
If he thinks candidate x...
I totally agree. I've always been more private about my Faith, and it bothers me to no end when I hear conservative right wingers tell me I'm going to hell for being a Democrat.
With the background and viewpoints that Gov Palin have (and her insane popularity with the Republicans), I'm actually worried about the election. Not in the "Oh no, my candidate might not win" way, but in the "This country is screwed" kind of way...
Oh, Edwin. This is my first visit to your blog, and it's wonderful, like you... your thoughtful critique and your use of the word "hindquarters" reminds me of how much I miss you and all the groovers... =) I hope you're doing well with your saving-the-world (and the people upstream)... and enjoying your midnight swims!
This is an interesting post Edwin. As a Catholic republican, I have found it very hard to agree with my party on war and on the death penalty. However, I have tried my hardest to understand justifications for policies on both sides of the political spectrum to inform myself anf form my conscience.
To get to the point, it is unfortunate that while we do believe that our conscience is our main guide, a great deal of Catholics ignore/skew clear Catholic teachings. When certain Catholic leaders in our government try to use their version of theology to justify being pro-choice, for example, conscience cannot be used as an excuse for such policies. It is for this reason that the Church has defined abortion to be always inheritantly evil, and says that one cannot vote in true conscience for a pro-choice candidate unless that candidate is the lesser of the two evils (eg. pro-abortion guy vs. pro-abortion and pro-euthanasia guy). In this sense, the Church isn't used, but rather stands for the same morals it has stood for for the last 2000 years, regardless of today's thoughts and political tides.
Hirav,
A good point. But I would argue that conscience is by nature individual and God-given. If any person or institution, other than our conscience itself, can tell us what we can or cannot do "in true conscience", something is very wrong.
Of course this leaves open the danger of excusing wrong things by way of "conscience" exactly as you said, but I believe that the cost of the alternative (moral blindness, possible wholesale moral manipulation) is worse. I don't need to point out examples of this.
Edwin,
Your point is very well taken. I have to agree that conscience is by its nature God-given. However, as flawed beings (due to our sin) and due to free will, we have the ability to make bad decision in the name of our "conscience". Grave atrocities have been committed by many people acting in what they believed to be "true conscience", such as the Holocaust and the Crusades.
I am as much against blind moral manipulation as you are, but I believe the solution to such a wholesale ignorance is better catechesis and education. Infallible statements made by the Magisterium on abortion are inheritantly correct (as they are guided by the Holy Spirit and use the full authority of the Catholic Church). However, the blind part of this following morality can be solved by reading the various documents written by Rome (e.g. Humanae Vitae) that justify the policies of the Church.
Hirav, I'm so glad we can keep in touch on the blog and still hit the hard questions.
Were the crusades not Church-sponsored, Church-disseminated "true conscience"?
As an organization of humans, the Church too is able to make bad decisions in the name of conscience, morality, righteousness, etc. (Pharisees if you want a Biblical example.)
That is why there must be preserved a personal morality and conscience between each individual and God, so that someone can speak out when the Church (or any other external entity) is wrong. And the church must not encroach on this.
Also, it's not just the issues or doctrine that can be wrong, but the priorities or applications of such. Even if the Church is right about something, the may be responding to it in an immoral way.
Edwin,
I am glad too :-) I love intellectual discussion.
The Crusades were the orders of fallible men (Pope Alexander II and Pope Urban II) to respond to pleas by the Byzantine Emperor to defend the empire against attacks by Turks on the empire and by orders from Turkish officials to destroy pilgrimage sites such as the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. It is sad that it degraded quickly into a bloodbath of Muslims, but again we have to remember that a fallible man was behind such orders and was acting as a political leader and not in the full function of the Ordinary Magisterium.
The Church itself is made up of sinners like you and me who can make bad decisions. However, as a whole, the "gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church". As such, the Church itself as the teaching authority established by Christ does infallibly declare statements such as statements about the sinful nature of such acts as abortion.
It is ok to speak out against the Church's leaders when we see immoral acts being committed. However, to pick and choose dogma cannot be considered to be the proper action of a faithful Catholic.
Prioritization and applications are the constraints of a political system. One must ask though that in today's democracy, is it really impossible for our voices to be heard collectively? If all Catholics spoke out against unjust war and against abortion, would our voices be ignored? I think prioritization is only the result of a disunity of Catholics, with some choosing policies that are inherently counter to catholic dogma.
I just reread my post. Excuse the poor grammar lol.
Post a Comment