February 17, 2005

Thinking More About Politics and Faith

It is always a dangerous thing for me to begin to consider how public life is an expression of the faith that we hold. I do not refer to Christian or other religious faith alone - though that certainly is part of the equation. I have to ask about the things that we value above all things, that in which we place out trust and about which we are ultimately concerned. A cautionary note: my love of Kierkegaard and Tillich will show here.

What is faith and its object?

It seems helpful to ask the basic questions first. What is faith? I understand this to be more than mere intellectual ascent. Certainly the majority of Americans will profess a belief in God but few would consider God in making daily decisions. There are those that use religion as a proscription: God forbids thus and so. I find this course and vulgar: Let us consider what rules we are willing to apply to ourselves before attempting to demand a moral standard from others. To digress a moment from the question at hand: the issue of gay marriage seems somewhat removed from the heterosexuals that voted against and that support a constitutional ban on gay marriage. This is emblematic, to me, of what is difficult about proscriptive ethics: they seek to control behavior that is removed from the reality of the persons that are articulating the ban. How is a heterosexual marriage harmed by the union of committed and loving same-sex couples? There is no connection. Only fear. That, I think is the article of faith that seems to drive this attitude: fear of a jealous and homophobic God. But that is not faith.

Faith is what I will chose to live and die for; it is the trust placed in truth that is so compelling that it gives shape, form, and meaning to my life. Faith is that which is ultimately true for me. This is quite a different thing from mere subjectivity. I have never been able to say that whatever is true for you is truth. If everything is true, nothing is true. If I live and die for something it is a matter of public life and defines my being in a way that goes beyond mere opinion: it is compelling beyond my truth. It is, for me, absolute truth based on my limited and finite vision.

The object of faith is that which drives my existence and defines who I am. This can be family, religion, nationalism, an ethic, a fear and so on. The contention that something is right or wrong is not faith but derives from a mind that has accepted a faith statement as normative for its function. Here is the hard thing: I do not believe that any of us are without such faith. I think that we elect not to explore it. It is frightening, especially when exploration means that I risk admitting that my faith is in error.

A Uniquely American Myth

We tend, as a people, to consider that faith is a personal and private matter that is not lived out in the public arena. That is, in and of itself, a statement of faith in the article of the constitution that seperates church from state. I have never understood that seperation to be a denial of faith. It is a wall that protects unpopular speech and belief. We are free to believe as we wish and to act on that belief in the public sector as long as our faith does not limit the rights of others. I am free to proclaim that God commands that men should only sleep with other men or that Jesus hates homosexuals. I am not free to kill gay people because I may believe that homosexuality is wrong. Quite to the contrary: the same law that protects unpopular speech protects freedom of choice to beleive or not believe according to my conscience.

To say that faith has no place in public discorse is to misunderstand faith. If this defines who I am it will have to have some impact on how I act in public.