Religious conviction is a delicate matter. Many of the greatest reformers this world has ever known, Christ, Moses, and Muhammad, not to mention more recent figures like Martin Luther King and Desmond Tutu, all heard God's voice, pushing them along, affirming them, inspiring them, and lifting them up in moments of doubt and exhaustion. Religious conviction can be a beautiful thing, illuminating one's path in a dark night of the soul, providing a sense of purpose and mission.
This type of religious conviction can also be a tricky, not to say terrifying, matter. Many who claim to hear God's voice then move to speaking for God, with no pause to allow for a moment of humility. My own question about religious reformers who claim to hear the voice of God or speak for God is always fairly simple: how deep is your love, and whom do you serve? In other words, is your conviction rooted in love, and is it directed to the uplifting of all of God's children, or does it uplift some at the expense of others? This is what causes me concern about some of what I heard from Governor Sarah Palin so far.
In the last few months we have seen agonizing "vetting" or even border-line inquisition dealing with the religious faith of Barack Obama and Jeremiah Wright. We have seen McCain struggle with whether he is a Baptist or Episcopalian. Fundamentally, I am and remain opposed to any type of a religious litmus test for a person running for political office. That is why I am not going to go in depth dealing with the divisive and deprecating comments of Sarah Palin's former ministers have made about Muslims, converting Jews, questioning whether democrats can reach heaven, blasting those who criticize George Bush going to hell, or the need for "spiritual warfare" against those who disagree with them.
But while their personal faith need not concern us, a person's actions and words are public matters. This is particularly the case for a person who stands a mere heartbeat away from the most powerful office on the planet, and has the power and responsibility to decide on matters of war and peace. These questions are not hypothetical or abstract. They are real, urgent, relevant, and appropriate. At that level, I do think it is imperative to take on the words and deeds of Sarah Palin. Many are paying attention to Palin's Pentecostal background as part of the Assemblies of God. I am more interested in what has she said about arguably the most divisive issue of our day, the war in
Is that right? That the Iraq War is part of God's plan? The God that we know does not look with favor with the death of up to a million of his children, both American and Iraqi. The God that we know does not look with fondness with taking the money that should be going as food into the wrinkled stomachs of God's children, and providing healthcare for the tens of millions without access to it, and instead wasting it at a tune of hundreds of billions of dollars in a war that benefits only the military-industrial complex. Part of the problem of this "God's plan" talk is that it effectively demonizes those around the world--and in this country--who have a profound objection to this war, its fuzzy logic, and the brutal and inefficient way in which it has been carried out. If the
It is one thing to scrutinize the words of the religious advisors and mentors that a presidential/vice-presidential candidate has ever uttered. It is another to see that candidate, Sarah Palin in this case, speaking at the church where her minister, Ed Kalnins, casts the
In her acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention, Palin claimed that victory in Iraq "is within sight." As one of those of us who watches the news from this troubled land every day with an aching heart and open eyes, I wonder if she is watching the same news as the rest of us, if she is living the same reality as the rest of us. In truth, it makes us wonder whether she is in fact hearing God's voice, or if she is just hearing voices.

Add to Newsvine
Add to StumbleUpon
I guess I was unclear/too brief: I don't presume that she would be an excellent 2 term president, and I don't think that she is ready now. As I said in my first post, I like her social conservatism, but I think she needs more time "to develop her other views, experience and governing philosophy." It's possible that she wouldn't develop, or would not develop in a way that I think is suited to a President, but I think she's an innately talented politician with a real sense of purpose, an ability to connect with people, a spine of steel, and the potential to grow (mature) into someone who can articulate and act upon a set of principles that stem from religious beliefs (with which I agree) but which are bounded (as they should be) by democratic constitutional limitations (e.g., as evidenced by the legislation re benefits to same-sex partners). There are things I have read about her that I don't like (including how she reportedly treats those who disagree with her) - and I thought she was overly viscious in her speech - but I think she has tremendous potential, and that four years would allow us to see whether that develops into the Presidential pick that I can imagine being excited about -- and that I would want for two terms. As for the current election, I can't bring myself to vote for either.
Thanks for the elucidation, Sally. I really wasn't trying to put you, personally, on the spot but rather just trying to see this whole thing through someone else's eyes - specifically someone who sees something "different" in Palin.
I actually disagree with you there. I've dug around on the Internet and read story after story, and found clips of some of her speeches and read about 50 articles about her behavior and policy since becoming Governor, and I see in her just another politician. She appears to change positions on issues when it becomes politically expedient, has said contradictory things at different times that makes one question what her real positions are, and has openly lied (or shall I say "emphasized the good" and "deemphasized the bad") on a number of occasions about her tenure as Governor so far. For example, in her RNC speech she patted herself on the back about rejecting the "bridge to nowhere" project, but conveniently left out a couple of important details. First, she was gung-ho about the project initially, and only abandoned it when it became politically unpopular. And second, she did not return the money earmarked for this project - she used it for other items. And, as you say, her "vicious" speech the other night didn't give me a very good impression of her, especially since she's trying to stand on the moral high ground in matters of faith and religion.
Maybe you're right, and this country certainly needs young, fresh leaders who can step out from under their party's umbrellas and deal with real issues that affect real people. And I certainly think it's time we had a woman president. But all the evidence I've gathered so far makes me think that Gov. Palin is just a pretender - just another ruthless, grasping politician who will sell anything in order to gain office.
These are critical and sensitive questions well posed. Reading this I am reminded of Bob Dylan's critique of those who use and abuse the "God on our side" motif. Professor Safi has penetrated Palin's veil of "religiology" -- religious discourse twisted into political pretzels -- and has gently reminded us to look for the genuine faith -- or at least ask what kind of distorted faith is this that Palin professes. Omid Safi's contribution sounds the clarion call for the true faith of "feed my sheep." The societies that Jesus and Muhammad advocated promoted economic, social and political equality. Whatever "religiologies" are being advanced to justify the barbarism of the wars in Iraq and Palestine -- whether "right" or not -- should not in any way be even remotely confused with the teachings of Jesus and Muhammad. Suggested reading: John Dominic Crossan and Marcus Borg, "The Last Week" (2006). Read especially the final chapter comparing America to Rome and Babylon.
I think you're misinterpreting what she said. The word "that" in the middle of the quote makes all the difference. There's a big difference between "they are doing God's will" and "pray that they are doing God's will."
Hi.
I found your Web Site by Google
And I wish you the best you can get,
the peace of God through Jesus Christ.
Welcome to visit my Site.
Allan Svensson, Sweden
Why does the revival tarry? It is because God's
people tarry to obey the powerful command of
the Lord in Rev. 18:4. This is the most powerful
revival message of the Lord to his people in our time.
http://www.algonet.se/~allan-sv/INDEX.HTM
The coming revival, a nameless revival
http://www.algonet.se/~allan-sv/POWERFUL.HTM
Why was the Pentecostal Revival stopped?
http://www.algonet.se/~allan-sv/CRISIS.HTM
As in the days of Lot, it is now. Lot was not interested
to leave Sodom. God sent two angels to rescue him.
One of the angels said to him: "Flee for your life sake ..."
Just like as Lot, God's people are not interested to leave
the great Babylon, but finally they must flee for
their life from there.
http://www.algonet.se/~allan-sv/PAGE88.HTM
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.