7.14.2005
speaker
Last night, I went to a talk: What Role Should Christians and Christianity Play in American Politics? by Tennessee State Senator Roy Herron. He's the author of three books: Things Held Dear: Soul Stories For My Sons, Tennessee Political Humor: Some of These Jokes You Voted For, and How Can A Christian Be In Politics?. It was an amazing talk run by the Oxford chapter of Democrats Abroad.
Unfortunately, the first introduction to Sen. Herron's speech was the chapter president of the Democrats Abroad Oxford, a guy named Eric, who is a student here at Oxford. Instead of making his speech (and therefore, the evening) about American politics, progressive politics, or the Democratis party, he started in on making the focus of his speech his belief in Christ. Now, he truly could have gone either way on this one: indeed he did not begin incorrectly, but rather than assuming that the entire crowd there was Christian (it was not), he might have better assumed that the majority of the audience was progressive. I think he irked a few people in his introduction. I was put on guard, not because I'm on guard about my faith, but because maybe I'm a little more sensitive to people who may not agree with Christian beliefs. Eric came on like an evangelical ton of bricks, and while his introduction was pertinent and interesting and truly heartfelt, I could see why it might have engendered some of the mild animosity voiced by some of the folks asking questions at the end of Sen. Herron's talk.
The second introduction came from a guy I met a few months back named Mike. He plays for the Oxford Kings baseball team, and I met him actually when I went down for batting practice one night in March. I think Mike is from Sen. Herron's constituency and called Sen. Herron his mentor, so I think they're pretty close. Mike's introduction was a lot tighter than Eric's: Eric is going to be a university professor someday, while Mike is going to be in government. It seems pretty clear from those two speeches. Whatever.
The real speech by Sen. Herron was amazing, both in what was said and what was not said (and how incredibly artfully it was done). First, Sen. Herron talked about his family, and a particularly traumatic period in which he and his wife were expecting twins only to find out that they had a rather severe complication in which one of the twins was getting more blood than the other. In many cases, both twins die, in the rest, only one survives. Sen. and Mrs. Herron were told to abort by six doctors, they did not, and they now have two healthy twin boys (and a third son as well). The story was told not as a lesson about abortion, which Sen. Herron opposes, from what I gather (he didn't actually say), but instead, the point was that the one doctor who recommended carrying the pregnancy to term, the family physician who delivered the children, the neonatal care specialists, the drugs they used, and the hospitals in which they work are all funded by government money, the personell involved were educated at public expense, and these are life-and-death issues just as serious as debates over abortion rights. Government has the power, far beyond Roe v. Wade or Terry Schiavo, to legislate life and death issues through the medium sometimes of funding public education, welfare, and healthcare.
Sen. Herron highlighted legislation that he fought for: seat belt laws, close to zero-tolerance for drunk driving among teenagers (under 21 legal alcohol limit is 0.02%) and a reduction from the 0.1% limit for other drivers to 0.08%. Drunk driving deaths are down, he said. He did this because it was the right thing to do, because it was the caring and responsible thing to do. He did not mention his Christianity in this. Nor, for that matter, did he mention the hot-button issues of Terry Schiavo, abortion, or gay marriage that have been a windfall for partisan politics in America: he didn't even mention them, much less come out on one side or another. He did say that he found it sad that a pro-life Democrat could not be found on the national party scene.
He did speak about the 2004 presidential campaign at great length. First and foremost, the Democrats have got to be better at speaking speaking the language of faith as a first language, he said. I'm an evangelical, personally, and I'm not sure *I* speak the language of faith as a very fluent second language, let alone a first language. I try, but I'm not very successful. Sen. Herron accused the Democrats of failing to speak it as a third or fourth language (with two exceptions: Al Gore and Joe Lieberman). In fact, when Democratic then-front-runner Howard Dean was asked in January of 2004 what his favorite book of the New Testament was, he answered "Job", but that he didn't like the way it ended. Dean was quoted as saying, "Some would argue, you know, in some of the books of the New Testament, the ending of the Book of Job is different. I think, if I'm not mistaken, there's one book where there's a more optimistic ending, which we believe was tacked on later." Meanwhile, Sen. Herron was no less disparaging of John Kerry, who's political CV while running for president still had that he had been an alter boy back in his childhood, almost akin to Bush saying that he was Student Council vice-president or something. And as for the Republicans, they are more adept at spinning the Bible to suit their needs, surely, but the Republican view of Christianity is just bad Christianity in his mind, and it's difficult for him (and for me, frankly) to read through the Bible to come up for the justifications for many of the Republican actions of late.
The most interesting part of the talk came at the Q&A session afterward. Here are some highlights:
• A man stated vehemently that he is an unbeliever and hates all organized religions and wanted a response to the statement that politicians who use religion in their dealings with the American people sound sanctimonious and ridiculous. Sen. Herron's response: yes they do, if they don't also act as though they mean it. But that action has to appear through their votes, their stances on issues, and not just being 'that candidate who prays more or goes to church more'.
• A woman told a story of her church pastor in Oklahoma who goes on the air to trumpet victory when liberal legislation is defeated and asked what role a pastor should have in American politics. Sen. Herron responded that the church should have a prophetic and detached role, speaking truth to power but not being seduced by it. The woman asked a follow-up: is it proper then for a pastor to sound off on political issues? Sen. Herron's response was that only on a very very limited number of issues the answers to which are found in the Bible. On all else, there is too much interpretation and ambiguity, and pastors who tend to get caught up in the Republican machine are being seduced by the powerful people in the Republican party.
• A man asked about the traditional separation of church and state. Sen. Herron's answer was this: The church should fight all attempts by the government to regulate it. The church should be very wary of government oversight of churches, of government rulings which infringe upon free worship by individuals. Government, on the other hand, is free to be influenced by the church. His basic point was that the separation of church and state was not a flaming wall to keep both out of each other's business but a one-way gate which prevents the influence of government on free worship by citizens but in which citizens, religious or otherwise, are always free to act as a prophetic voice as an influence on government. Certainly there should not be a single church in control of government, but there were never intended any barriers to the church's attempt to speak truth to power. He gave this analogy, which came to us actually from the floor of the Tennessee Senate: he was reminded of the guy who added horse poop to ice cream. It doesn't really do anything to the horse apples, but it wreaks hell on the ice cream. In the same way, the mixing of government and the church can't really do anything but help government, however weakly, but it will destroy the autonomy and abilities of the church.
• A woman asked about cultural issues: Sen. Herron has previously stated that "I'm from Tennessee, I'm not from California or New York or those places..." So yes there is a massive cultural divide in America. Can these be explained as cultural issues instead of moral clashes or mere partisan bickering, and how can the Christian church help to bridge that gap? Sen. Herron's response was less than lucid, stating that yes there are huge cultural divides and it's important to recognize them as areas of full-on disagreement and not just miscommunication.
• Lastly, a man asked if anyone on the national stage did wear his faith well, and also what remedy might Sen. Herron prescribe for the Democratic party? The response was more forthright than any of us had been anticipating: first off, Sen. Joseph Lieberman, also Al Gore has been seen to wear his faith well, but is uncomfortable doing it. Sen. John Edwards does, but his wife Elizabeth speaks much more eloquently than Sen. Edwards, as does Tipper Gore over her husband. And as for the remedy, the best thing that Democrats can do is to learn to speak the language of faith as a first language. And this begins, really, with the reading of scripture. Sen. Herron admitted that this does sound dangerously fundamentalist, but it's important: Biblical literacy in America is plummeting, and those who win the hearts of Christian voters (among whom Biblical literacy is also plummeting) are those who can 'fake' it the best. And if the Democrats want to outmaneuver the Republicans, they have to be able to speak that language.
The individual questions raised one-on-one also included questions of social justice (answer: read Leviticus, particularly about the redistribution of wealth for some very radical, if impractical ideas eg. the jubilee year), environmental stewardship (answer: the Republicans have seized on the words "have dominion over the earth" while Christians need to remember that the earth is not ours: it belongs to God and he lets us use it for a while, but we need to take better care of it), and the until-recently political inaction of the evangelical church in America (answer: descendant both from a sense of complacency in politics and also a tradition of the Anabaptist movement of England which taught that Christians should keep to what is pure and holy and not engage too deeply in the world).
Finally a point from me, Sen. Herron is a moderate Democrat, but he was truly an inspirational speaker and a very generous man. I may not agree with everything he says in his book, but I did buy it (and of course, asked him to sign it) and I think I'll enjoy reading it. For a different view of Christians in politics, there's a pretty extreme view profiled in the New Yorker about two weeks ago: it's Patrick Henry College in Virginia, and it's a place where you're taught both Christian ethics and also political theory. Unfortunately, it's entirely in the ridiculously conservative strain of the church, including rules on having to inform parents before you start dating. Both sides are interesting, but I'm much more of a Christian liberal, at least, politically. Socially, I think I'm more of a moderate, but my political views are pretty left.
This has been a long post: I hope it hasn't been preachy. That certainly wasn't my intention. Meanwhile, if anyone has any thoughts, including comments on either my statements or the answers that Sen. Herron gave, please don't hesitate to comment on the blog posting.
Unfortunately, the first introduction to Sen. Herron's speech was the chapter president of the Democrats Abroad Oxford, a guy named Eric, who is a student here at Oxford. Instead of making his speech (and therefore, the evening) about American politics, progressive politics, or the Democratis party, he started in on making the focus of his speech his belief in Christ. Now, he truly could have gone either way on this one: indeed he did not begin incorrectly, but rather than assuming that the entire crowd there was Christian (it was not), he might have better assumed that the majority of the audience was progressive. I think he irked a few people in his introduction. I was put on guard, not because I'm on guard about my faith, but because maybe I'm a little more sensitive to people who may not agree with Christian beliefs. Eric came on like an evangelical ton of bricks, and while his introduction was pertinent and interesting and truly heartfelt, I could see why it might have engendered some of the mild animosity voiced by some of the folks asking questions at the end of Sen. Herron's talk.
The second introduction came from a guy I met a few months back named Mike. He plays for the Oxford Kings baseball team, and I met him actually when I went down for batting practice one night in March. I think Mike is from Sen. Herron's constituency and called Sen. Herron his mentor, so I think they're pretty close. Mike's introduction was a lot tighter than Eric's: Eric is going to be a university professor someday, while Mike is going to be in government. It seems pretty clear from those two speeches. Whatever.
The real speech by Sen. Herron was amazing, both in what was said and what was not said (and how incredibly artfully it was done). First, Sen. Herron talked about his family, and a particularly traumatic period in which he and his wife were expecting twins only to find out that they had a rather severe complication in which one of the twins was getting more blood than the other. In many cases, both twins die, in the rest, only one survives. Sen. and Mrs. Herron were told to abort by six doctors, they did not, and they now have two healthy twin boys (and a third son as well). The story was told not as a lesson about abortion, which Sen. Herron opposes, from what I gather (he didn't actually say), but instead, the point was that the one doctor who recommended carrying the pregnancy to term, the family physician who delivered the children, the neonatal care specialists, the drugs they used, and the hospitals in which they work are all funded by government money, the personell involved were educated at public expense, and these are life-and-death issues just as serious as debates over abortion rights. Government has the power, far beyond Roe v. Wade or Terry Schiavo, to legislate life and death issues through the medium sometimes of funding public education, welfare, and healthcare.
Sen. Herron highlighted legislation that he fought for: seat belt laws, close to zero-tolerance for drunk driving among teenagers (under 21 legal alcohol limit is 0.02%) and a reduction from the 0.1% limit for other drivers to 0.08%. Drunk driving deaths are down, he said. He did this because it was the right thing to do, because it was the caring and responsible thing to do. He did not mention his Christianity in this. Nor, for that matter, did he mention the hot-button issues of Terry Schiavo, abortion, or gay marriage that have been a windfall for partisan politics in America: he didn't even mention them, much less come out on one side or another. He did say that he found it sad that a pro-life Democrat could not be found on the national party scene.
He did speak about the 2004 presidential campaign at great length. First and foremost, the Democrats have got to be better at speaking speaking the language of faith as a first language, he said. I'm an evangelical, personally, and I'm not sure *I* speak the language of faith as a very fluent second language, let alone a first language. I try, but I'm not very successful. Sen. Herron accused the Democrats of failing to speak it as a third or fourth language (with two exceptions: Al Gore and Joe Lieberman). In fact, when Democratic then-front-runner Howard Dean was asked in January of 2004 what his favorite book of the New Testament was, he answered "Job", but that he didn't like the way it ended. Dean was quoted as saying, "Some would argue, you know, in some of the books of the New Testament, the ending of the Book of Job is different. I think, if I'm not mistaken, there's one book where there's a more optimistic ending, which we believe was tacked on later." Meanwhile, Sen. Herron was no less disparaging of John Kerry, who's political CV while running for president still had that he had been an alter boy back in his childhood, almost akin to Bush saying that he was Student Council vice-president or something. And as for the Republicans, they are more adept at spinning the Bible to suit their needs, surely, but the Republican view of Christianity is just bad Christianity in his mind, and it's difficult for him (and for me, frankly) to read through the Bible to come up for the justifications for many of the Republican actions of late.
The most interesting part of the talk came at the Q&A session afterward. Here are some highlights:
• A man stated vehemently that he is an unbeliever and hates all organized religions and wanted a response to the statement that politicians who use religion in their dealings with the American people sound sanctimonious and ridiculous. Sen. Herron's response: yes they do, if they don't also act as though they mean it. But that action has to appear through their votes, their stances on issues, and not just being 'that candidate who prays more or goes to church more'.
• A woman told a story of her church pastor in Oklahoma who goes on the air to trumpet victory when liberal legislation is defeated and asked what role a pastor should have in American politics. Sen. Herron responded that the church should have a prophetic and detached role, speaking truth to power but not being seduced by it. The woman asked a follow-up: is it proper then for a pastor to sound off on political issues? Sen. Herron's response was that only on a very very limited number of issues the answers to which are found in the Bible. On all else, there is too much interpretation and ambiguity, and pastors who tend to get caught up in the Republican machine are being seduced by the powerful people in the Republican party.
• A man asked about the traditional separation of church and state. Sen. Herron's answer was this: The church should fight all attempts by the government to regulate it. The church should be very wary of government oversight of churches, of government rulings which infringe upon free worship by individuals. Government, on the other hand, is free to be influenced by the church. His basic point was that the separation of church and state was not a flaming wall to keep both out of each other's business but a one-way gate which prevents the influence of government on free worship by citizens but in which citizens, religious or otherwise, are always free to act as a prophetic voice as an influence on government. Certainly there should not be a single church in control of government, but there were never intended any barriers to the church's attempt to speak truth to power. He gave this analogy, which came to us actually from the floor of the Tennessee Senate: he was reminded of the guy who added horse poop to ice cream. It doesn't really do anything to the horse apples, but it wreaks hell on the ice cream. In the same way, the mixing of government and the church can't really do anything but help government, however weakly, but it will destroy the autonomy and abilities of the church.
• A woman asked about cultural issues: Sen. Herron has previously stated that "I'm from Tennessee, I'm not from California or New York or those places..." So yes there is a massive cultural divide in America. Can these be explained as cultural issues instead of moral clashes or mere partisan bickering, and how can the Christian church help to bridge that gap? Sen. Herron's response was less than lucid, stating that yes there are huge cultural divides and it's important to recognize them as areas of full-on disagreement and not just miscommunication.
• Lastly, a man asked if anyone on the national stage did wear his faith well, and also what remedy might Sen. Herron prescribe for the Democratic party? The response was more forthright than any of us had been anticipating: first off, Sen. Joseph Lieberman, also Al Gore has been seen to wear his faith well, but is uncomfortable doing it. Sen. John Edwards does, but his wife Elizabeth speaks much more eloquently than Sen. Edwards, as does Tipper Gore over her husband. And as for the remedy, the best thing that Democrats can do is to learn to speak the language of faith as a first language. And this begins, really, with the reading of scripture. Sen. Herron admitted that this does sound dangerously fundamentalist, but it's important: Biblical literacy in America is plummeting, and those who win the hearts of Christian voters (among whom Biblical literacy is also plummeting) are those who can 'fake' it the best. And if the Democrats want to outmaneuver the Republicans, they have to be able to speak that language.
The individual questions raised one-on-one also included questions of social justice (answer: read Leviticus, particularly about the redistribution of wealth for some very radical, if impractical ideas eg. the jubilee year), environmental stewardship (answer: the Republicans have seized on the words "have dominion over the earth" while Christians need to remember that the earth is not ours: it belongs to God and he lets us use it for a while, but we need to take better care of it), and the until-recently political inaction of the evangelical church in America (answer: descendant both from a sense of complacency in politics and also a tradition of the Anabaptist movement of England which taught that Christians should keep to what is pure and holy and not engage too deeply in the world).
Finally a point from me, Sen. Herron is a moderate Democrat, but he was truly an inspirational speaker and a very generous man. I may not agree with everything he says in his book, but I did buy it (and of course, asked him to sign it) and I think I'll enjoy reading it. For a different view of Christians in politics, there's a pretty extreme view profiled in the New Yorker about two weeks ago: it's Patrick Henry College in Virginia, and it's a place where you're taught both Christian ethics and also political theory. Unfortunately, it's entirely in the ridiculously conservative strain of the church, including rules on having to inform parents before you start dating. Both sides are interesting, but I'm much more of a Christian liberal, at least, politically. Socially, I think I'm more of a moderate, but my political views are pretty left.
This has been a long post: I hope it hasn't been preachy. That certainly wasn't my intention. Meanwhile, if anyone has any thoughts, including comments on either my statements or the answers that Sen. Herron gave, please don't hesitate to comment on the blog posting.
