I Am Voting for...

The conventions are over and we can get some sleep – or maybe not!

I’ve been gently probed to comment on who I will vote for and why and I have resisted such questions in the past, but today I’m going to tell you both who I am voting for and why. I am voting for God, who showed us the way and truth and righteous life in Jesus the Christ and who continues to guide us in the way, truth, and righteous life by the power of the Holy Spirit.

I was brought up to not talk about religion and politics in polite company, though, to my parents’ credit, these topics were welcome at the dinner table. Sadly “separation of church and state” has been so twisted that people now seem to read it “separation of faith and society,” not that this has stopped both political parties from using religion when it suits a political agenda.

Any Christian knows that separating faith from political decisions that affect our society cannot be done. Let me briefly try to clear this up a bit, if I can. Freedom of religion meant that the government cannot dictate our religious beliefs. What it does NOT mean is that government can limit the free expression of our beliefs, our faith, although a secular, financial “religion” has been growing over the past years – but that’s for another time.

Can we agree that no Christian should push his/her faith aside to vote? Can we agree with the Psalmist that we are to put our trust in God over our trust in any political party or candidate?

I especially like the Psalmist verse (146). “When their breath departs, they return to the earth; on that day their plans perish.” If that verse was written today it would read, “When their speech is over, they return to the polls; in that moment their plans perish.”

Can we agree that often Christ himself stated that our faith is to be chosen over our funds, our friends, even our families?

But why trust in God most of all? God made the heavens, earth, seas, and is faithful forever. Now I know the candidates want you to believe they make the sun rise and that they hung the moon and stars, but we know better.

James helps in the discernment of the relationship between faith and politics. He writes that there is an incompatibility between faith and favoritism, especially favoritism shown to the rich and powerful, and an incompatibility between faith and indifference.

As to the incompatibility of faith and favoritism especially toward the rich, James gives three clear reasons:

1) First, God has assigned the poor to be rich in faith. Now I’m going to show my skepticism but listen to these two stories and tell me which speaks most clearly about the power of faith. A multi-millionaire stands to give thanks to God for all that God has done for him. A poor woman places the few coins she possesses on the altar to express her faith. Your choice.
2) Second, James asks if we are favoring the rich because we think we might grab a few crumbs that drop from their tables. James points out that the rich and powerful are only concerned about protecting their wealth and the systems that keep them rich.
3) Third, and most poignantly, favoritism is a sin. We are to see with the eyes of God, seeing all persons as equals and worthy of God’s grace.

As to the incompatibility between faith and indifference, let’s look at what the Psalmist writes as God’s concern, God’s platform, if you will.

1) Practice justice for the oppressed.Those intentionally knocked down and held down will have justice.
2) Offer food for the hungry. No way to make that any clearer.
3) Set the prisoner free. Those who are imprisoned by a narrow faith and unjust laws based upon prejudices of racism, ageism, poverty, and political beliefs.
4) Open the eyes of the blind. The blindness of ignorance will receive education. The light of God will be easily available to those spiritually blind. And, if we are able, the physical and mental healing of those blinded by pain due only due to their poverty.
5) Lift up those who are bowed down. Rich or poor, life often burdens us with challenges that seem beyond our individual efforts.
6) Watch over the strangers. Protect and defend the foreigner and those who look, speak, and live differently than others.
7) Uphold the orphans and widows. These two groups represented all those who have no voice in society, no support, lost and living in the shadows.

And every platform must hold out a promise and God, through the Psalmist, gives us one.
A promise of God’s unfailing love, and ruin for the wicked (in God’s own way and time)

So, how do you bring your faith and politics together? Here is my plan.

I’m going to put my Bible in the center of the table and open it to the Gospels. Then I’m going to place the two party platforms to the left and right of the Scriptures and, no, I’m not saying which side is which!

I won’t expect either platform to follow God’s platform exactly BUT I will see which political platform follows most closely God’s platform to:

Provide justice for the oppressed, food for the hungry, freedom for the prisoner, sight for the blind, hope for the downtrodden, watchfulness over the stranger, and support for the orphans and widows.

Then, with much prayer, I will vote for God’s platform as I vote for my candidate.

A Meaningless Election?

I try to bite my tongue when I hear the conversation going to politics. It seems we have lost our ability to debate and discuss, and I see more tweets from twits than actual ideological exchange.
Indeed, the prevailing emotion surrounding this election is fear. (I am siding with those in emotion theory that say anger is only an expression of fear.) Emotion is the post-modern language of sincerity. To be intellectual and logical is under suspicion. To speak passionately carries more weight than speaking logically and fear motivates movement, more so than sadness or joy. If I decided to not vote for any candidate that used fear as a ploy to get my vote, I could stay home on Election Day.

There are some reasons why the post-modern political fear-mongering works:
First, no one knows how the government works anymore anyway. Civics classes and serious government classes are now moving aside to allow for more science, math, and technology. Ethics classes are no longer core curriculum. Philosophy classes are electives if they exist at all. The goal of education is only to get a good job defined as making a lot of money. The humanities – a radical segment of academia that has been vilified in that they often ask the question “What if?” – has to fight to keep on par with sports programs. Actually, I show my age there. Sports won that game a long time ago.
More importantly, the closer we get to actually voting, we as a culture realize we have no idea what is really going on in government or what is hidden within the party platforms and our fear rises. The spin doctors then gather this fear and shape it into campaign slogans, one-liners, and visual images hoping to herd us with these political cattle prods into the voting shoots, booths.

Second, have you ever tried to read a congressional bill? Don’t worry if you haven’t. It seems many of our legislators don’t read them either. (At least their aids got a few civics courses.) But if you did, it seems that none of the authors ever had an English class with any of my English teachers who constantly demanded clarity. (I’m on a rant now so I am excused from clarity in that I’m being sincere.) I hate to say this but if either party wants to develop a learned citizenry to maximize the benefits of a true representative democracy, you are going to have to dumb down your plans. We don’t read well enough or long enough to understand. Then when you add on some last minute, self-serving item that has nothing to do with the intent or focus of the original bill we just slogged through, well, forget it all. We’ll just wait for someone to tell us what it says and how we are supposed to feel about it.

Third, and most frightful of all, words used in a political race no longer have meaning. They are only intended to create a mood. Hints: Socialism and communism are not the same thing, neither do capitalism and democracy mean the same thing; patriotism is not owned by any political party no matter what historical event they pretend to emulate by co-opting the name; saying the other party has no program doesn't mean you do; no presidential candidate can promise anything without a majority of congress.
If you plan to watch the conventions in order to decide who to vote for in the upcoming election, I've read that folks already have their minds made up. If this is true for you, don't watch the conventions. All they will do is add to the meaningless list of slogans, put-downs, and sly innuendo. It might be more fun to watch the WWF. At least there we all know its mostly for show, the emotions, and the money. And people get to hit each other!!!

I've also been told that this situation has always been true. What do you think?
Also, do you think that even if one party proposes a plan that the other party realizes would be good for the country, the responding party will still sabotage the plan because it might weaken their political party's power?

The Rug Tells All

I'm back from the 2012 International Conference of the Jungian Society for Scholarly Studies in New Orleans. Glad they shortened it to JSSS or we would have been smacking each other with plastic name tags all week. Many good presentations and a chance to see old friends and make new. One of my new friends, however, made a comment that I was "obsessed with the carpet" in the Bourbon Orleans Hotel, and she was right.

I have been to many conferences where vital issues of cultural and personal concern were passionately and intelligently expressed only to have the attendees return home, fill up a file folder with the collected "freebies," write the title of the conference on the tab, and then file it next to last year's conference notes. Brilliant and impotent.

Now comes the rug part. There are two identical carpets that cover the lounge within the hotel (a beautiful hotel, I might add - say hello to Janelle in the restaurant). My new friend heard me comment more than once about the carpet. There was a curious lack of an image. The carpet center was a circle with rays flowing out from the center, something like a dart board. Not far from the center and at the top and bottom of the carpet design were two quivers filled with arrows. The one image missing was a bow.

A quiver filled with items honed to a cutting edge, sharpened to pierce the target of their trajectory. Arrows whose very purpose is only fulfilled if shot from a bow to a target. And a target, like a mandala, drawing sight to its center, helping clarify and focus the very spot where the arrow must pierce. But no bow, no bridge to get point A to target B. And it did bother me, this image, for it spoke to all those earlier conferences I mentioned. All those sharp, insightful arrows tucked away in file folders while the world keeps throwing up blood and tear soaked targets crying out to be seen.

It was then that I realized that no matter how many bows (techniques) any conference presents (and this conference offered several), it still takes someone to notch the arrow (psyche/wisdom), draw back the string (soma/sinew), and take aim at the center, the soul of the human cry. I am, we are all, the needed bow.

New Orleans and North Carolina

Headed to New Orleans in August to present a roundtable at the International Jungian Society for Scholarly Studies.
JSSS
Also leading a pre-conference workshop in North Carolina for Journey Conferences in October.
Journey Conferences