Tell the (partisan) truth

By Bromleigh McCleneghan

I am increasingly concerned with the needs of children. In my family’s case, I thank God for the blessing of decent health insurance, the possibility of paid maternity leave, and the good local schools in the town where I serve. But what about other children?

The Children’s Defense Fund helps me keep tabs on how we, as a nation, are faring with our responsibilities to extend access to these necessities to all children.

(Their Children’s Sabbath resources bridge the chasm in minds between our children and all children in theologically rich ways.) The annual CDF “Non-Partisan Congressional Scorecard” showed up in my e-mail inbox late last week. It spotlights how our congressional representatives voted on ten Senate bills and ten House bills that are critically important to America’s children.

The issues range from budget appropriations and college funding programs to Head Start and health care for uninsured kids. Impressed with my representatives’ votes, I fired off several “thank you” e-mails to let them know that protecting our nation’s children is important to this constituent.

Now the next step. How do I share some of this vital information with my congregation? We’re small, but blessed with a number of young children, parents, teachers and other lovers of children. Child advocacy shouldn’t be a hard sell, and we have a history of talking about political issues in worship and in Christian education settings, though I’m careful to focus on issues and not parties.

But here’s the thing: there’s a pretty sharp and obvious divide in this year’s CDF scorecard. Of the 30 senators who scored perfectly, all were Democrats. Of the 13 who scored less than 30 percent, all were Republicans. The House study showed similar results. And some of my parishioners pride themselves on voting a straight ticket for “family values”— it is largely for them that I feel the need to point out this glaring discrepancy.

Do I have an obligation to point out who is serving as protector and champion of “the least of these” and who is failing to use a position of considerable power and privilege to do so? When is it time to tell an uncomfortable partisan truth?

Bromleigh McCleneghan is pastor of Riverside United Methodist Church in Riverside, Illinois.

Comments

[jdward]

I to struggle with this. My church is 'family values' to the point that they would most likely question the CDF - seeing it is a mask for a liberal organization bent on destroying the world and it's children.
How do pastor's shape political imaginations when people regularly read Ann Coultier?

[TBrownfield]

It seems both fair and useful to ask Christians of all political persuasions to match their definitions of such terms as "Family Values" to the biblical imperative for justice, and then to demand of their political representatives that they support positions and issues that express those terms fully and consistently. To follow their Christianity politically, Christians need to support candidates because of their stands on issues rather than party affiliation. As God isn't identified with any political party, so Christians should be the ultimate political independents holding all parties accountable. Let's we keep asking the question "How are you vetting your candidates? What are your criteria for deciding that a candidate puts forth an acceptable agenda?" One can find Children's Defense Fund information to be useful, and yet suggest that others find their own answers about how their candidates or representatives express "Christian positions."

[Jim Metcalf]

I would/will tell my congregation a bit about the bills, and why I think they represent Christian values, i.e. why they are loving towards children. Then I would encourage them to see how their senators and representatives voted, and to ask their people in Congress why they voted the way they did. From my point-of-view, the chief goal is to first help people think for themselves.

[Myron Simmons]

It is an issue of integrity. Anything that smacks of being a voter guide is inappropriate to share with our congregation in its raw format. Based on what the original post says, this appears to be the same format that Pat Robinson's coalition uses. I will not distribute either. They are both equally inappropriate at all times. I must do what I can do: teach principles of compassion and justice to transformed people who will be involved in transforming their society as Wilberforce did with slavery in the Commonwealth nations.

[Mary James]

One effective tool is to simply alternate the telling of the scriptural text in a compelling way with stories of actual children who are without health insurance, proper schooling, and other basic services. Such narratives of children are widely available in the news. This allows the scriptures (especially when presented in an interesting way with historical context to flesh out their meaning for the listeners) to speak directly to the contemporary situation. The Gospel accomplishes the critique of our poor track record with our country's children very fully all by itself. Speaking specifically of candidates and parties is not appropriate, in my view. Certainly urging congregation members to be well informed, and lifting up the issues and questions of our day through the lenses of scripture,reason,ethics and experience also is appropriate-- and is our obligation.

[rick brand]

A friend once commented that she found it strange that church groups always try to be impartial. We have issue meetings with spokepeople on both sides of every issue. She said we act as if the gospel were impartial. Certainly that is not the reality. The gospel does choose sides. Why not the church?

[Monte Asbury]

I wonder if you could simply list the names of the elected officials who were strong supporters without mention of political party, and invite any who cared to to drop them a note of thanks. The congregants own Senators/Representatives will be conspicuous by their presence or absence on the list, and you will have focused away from parties and onto issues.

[Suzy]

Openly discussing partisan politics causes discomfort for many and carries risk. However, I don't agree that we should shy away from an issue just because it's on someone else's political agenda. Bipartisan cooperation (such as that around SCHIP) happen partly because people gathered in non-political groups like congregations are introduced to ideas in a way that makes them say, "Oh, yes, I agree with that." Suggesting that we as Christians ought to be doing (whatever) is different from saying, "We Democratic Christians are already doing it and you Republicans should get with the program!" or vice versa. We shouldn't let politicians hijack social-justice issues. We should be Christians first and partisans later, if at all.

[Glen Stadler]

Maybe the best way to advocate for children through our congregations has nothing to do with political parties, but rather has everything to do with how we regard parents on the basis of scripture and the teachings and practices of our traditions. Having examined our baptismal practices, for instance, what does our tradition suggest in support and encouragement of parents? Do parents promise to do certain things? How do we help them in this endeavor? How do the documents of our tradition regard parents? For instance, in my Lutheran tradition the Large Catechism of Martin Luther speaks powerfully regarding the commandment on honoring parents. How does my congregation help us honor parents? It is one thing to have expectations of political policy of any party, and quite another to put into practice our own faith tradition. If we want to do our kids a favor, honor their parents as they accept their God-given roles, and support them as they seek as disciples of Jesus Christ to accept their God-given responsibilities.