Responding to Politics with Love

I want to keep this blog about my role as a minister, but I also feel I need to respond to events in the world as they strike me. I hope this can be achieved without simply resorting to a rant about people I disagree with. So now I will begin

I was purusing CNN.com last night to see what was happening in the world. In doing so I happened upon an article about Mary Cheney, the daughter of the vice-president. It was expressing the dismay of many conservatives at the choice of Mary and her partner to have a child. What struck me most was the reaction of one member of Focus on the Family. "Carrie Gordon Earll, a policy analyst for the conservative Christian ministry Focus on the Family, expressed empathy for the Cheney family but depicted the pregnancy as unwise.

'Just because you can conceive a child outside a one-woman, one-man marriage doesn't mean it's a good idea,' Earll said. 'Love can't replace a mother and a father.'" (quoted from CNN.com http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/12/06/cheney.daughters.ap/index.html.)

I am dismyed by her final statement, "love can't replace a mother and a father." My reaction is not about the issue of homosexuality, or artifical insemination, or anything like that, but at the great harm that is caused by such a statement. I consider myself fortunate to have gone through my life with the presence of both my parents. Neither death nor divorce left me in a position where I never saw them. In her attempt to attack the situation of Cheney, Earll has done two things I consider bad, she has (perhaphs unintentionally) made anyone who lost a parent as a child seem inferior. Earll seems to imply that despite the love of the remaining parent, nothing can replace the previous parent, that some negative harm has been done. It also ignores the possibility that a parent is more than just being there. There are too many abusive examples of mothers and fathers in our society today to be able to make a blanket statement that a child is better off having a mother and father.

The second and more troubling part of her statement is what I really want to consider this morning. Perhaps it is a romantic notion of mine, but I want to believe in the power of love. I take very seriously the writings of Paul in Corinthians when he says "faith, hope, and love abide ... and the greatest of these is love." I guess what I am getting at is a concern that too often people of faith are willing to sacrifice faith, to expose bad theology in order to make a political statement. I believe that Christianity has the ability to, and should be used to make a statement against the trends of society and of politics.

When I read Earll's statement I see a concern for all of us. How do we make sure that we do not lose love in the midst of politics. How do make sure our passion for issues does not cloud our love of God, each other, and especially ourselves. I think if Earll had simply said she did not believe that it was a wise choice for Cheney and her partner I would have perhaps disagreed but left it at that. Instead she makes a statement that I believe is damaging to how people percieve Christians. Maybe the real question is what is Focus on the Family, a political group first and a Christian group second, or a Christian group first and a politcal group second. I want to state that I use Focus on the Family because of the example that Earll creates, but I believe the same question could be asked of groups on all sides of this issue, or any issue. If a group is a Christian group first and foremost, then it should not make a poltical point at the expense of beliefs.

As I consider the past electoral season I was struck most profoundly by the negative attacks made on other politicans. Has love for our neighbor been lost for the sake of politics. My greatest concern in Earll's statement is that being right and making a point has become the most important part of political dialogue and that love for one another and respect for each other has been sacrificed for he sake of a cause.