The Invitation

HSLC will host a conversation on how our religion and moral values should frame our political views and voting behavior. Please read the first post Origins followed by The Challenge to see how we got here.

The purpose is not to tell you how to vote. It isn't even to discuss how Christians should view a particular political issue. Instead of searching for the right answers, we will try to search for the right questions.

We will also search for ways to answer the questions: How can any intelligent person believe / vote for X? How can any moral person believe / vote for Y?

But we need your help.

Please post a response / comment (you may do so anonymously) and tell us which issues you would like to explore.

For our first meeting, we would like to select two topics. Which topic should it be? Minimum Wage? Environment? Foreign Oil Dependence? Immigration? Taxation?

Drop us a note and tell us what you think ...

The Challenge

On Wednesday, one of Pastor Mike's parishoners sent him the following email. Although he admits to not finishing the bottom "Going Deeper" part of the letter, his basic response to the letter writer was "you are right".

---

The Letter

---

Want to schedule a Tuesday meeting to discuss values and political issues? Could be fun. And with the elections over people might be able to consider the issues more calmly.

I would like to reiterate my appreciation and agreement with the thrust of your sermon. It is a shame that you had to say “Bush is my President” and that some of the audience needed to hear it.
You are 110% correct that we as a society in general and as Christians in particular should always take our values (all of them) into the voting booth. Arguing that people should only vote their narrow economic interests is:

Insulting.

Marxist reductionism.

A formula that no democracy can long survive. “Bread and Circuses” is the fatal disease of democracies. Encouraging that type of thinking is an abomination.

Doubly insufferable when the argument is made by people who, by the same argument, have already decided to vote against their narrow economic interests.

So I give you a standing ovation on all that.

BUT (hey you knew this was coming) you also made a very subtle but highly consequential mistake. It is a common one, and often behind the acrimony in political discourse.

You confused policy disputes with moral / value disputes. Now all of the things that you mentioned have implications for both. But consider two items you mentioned: abortion and minimum wage.

Abortion is a pure values dispute which results in policy disputes. Values dictate policy. Valuing the unborn and unrestricted abortion are fundamentally incompatible.

Minimum wage is a pure policy dispute. Although it can be conceived of in terms of values and morality, an agreement on values does not require an agreement on policy. It is possible to earnestly wish to help the poor and agree the government should help if it can (a values discussion) and also support the elimination of the minimum wage (a policy discussion). So a disagreement on policy does not necessarily imply a disagreement on values.

Bottom Line: if you are having a discussion with someone, make sure both of you are having the same one. Are we discussing Goals, Means, or Results?

---

Getting deeper

---

Indeed, there are TWO types of conversations.

An agreement on the duties Christians have to be compassionate and charitable does not require an agreement that these duties should be met in part or in their entirety through the exercise of government power. That is a long conversation, and a good one. It is a conversation we all should have. But I would hope we can agree that disagreement on the latter does not imply disagreement on the former. (Goals vs. Means).

The second conversation involves the efficacy of a particular use of government power in achieving the stated aims. (Means vs. Results

The Origins

On November 6th 2004 Pastor Mike addressed the congregation of Holy Spirit Lutheran Church of Kirkland (ELCA).

He stated that President Bush was his President and everyone should stand behind him. But he also talked about the after-election discussions about value voters. He argued, in brief, that people who criticized those who voted on moral values were wrong. As Christians we should be bringing our values into our politics and our voting on every issue. This includes not only abortion, but every other issue. He mentioned, for example, the minimum wage.

And so it started.