Jesse A. Schroeder

In these last few days following the much-anticipated presidential election, the Christian community has been charged with differing responses to the outcome. Some people are hopeful, seeing the opportunity for real changes and recognizing the significance of the first African-American President believe that even greater things are just around the corner. Others are disappointed and concerned, wondering what a liberal Democrat will do in political power. I have heard questions from students about abortion, race, gay marriage, health care, and more.

In talking to students and adults about these issues and questions, I have found that there are very real differences between some of us. And sometimes these differences cause hurt and conflict between us. And so I've been thinking a lot about the conflicts that have come up as a result of this election, and I've come to two conclusions:

1) Being a Christian is - more than anything else - about resolving conflict. On a spiritual level, we resolve our conflict with God and are reconciled. On a personal level, I must do all I can to resolve my conflicts with people I disagree with or whom I have hurt in some way. The implication of Jesus' death on the cross, bringing me back to God through forgiveness, is that I have to be brought back to peace with my fellow human beings. For me, being a Christian means that my relationships with other people should mirror my relationship with God as much as possible - and so I must work to reconcile, forgive, and heal.

2) Standing firm in what you believe to be true is very difficult. It is always easier to run away from conflict. But when a person comes to the conviction that something is true and right, and they take a real stand, the opposition and the conflict will be shortcoming. A very big part of me would rather not have conflicts with other people at all. It would be much easier to go with the flow and not make a big deal out of it. But then I would not be being true to myself, to what I believe and see to be true in the world around me. And so I have to be willing, and expect, conflict - even though I don't like it and my goal is always to be reconciled to those around me.

I can't really say that I have many "heroes" outside of the people in my family who have dramatically impacted my life. But in the last few weeks, I found myself inspired by Barack Obama. I see him as a man who is willing to stand up for what he believes is true and what he believes is possible, regardless of those who oppose him and regardless of the conflict and the attacks. Below are some selections from his keynote address in June 2006, entitled "Call to Renewal" that I find particularly inspiring.

I don't agree with all of Barack Obama's policies, and I don't know how he will be as president. But I know from my own life that it is hard to stand firm in your beliefs and convictions. And I see in Barack Obama someone who shares many of the same convictions I hold at the core of my being, and someone who is dedicating his life to seeing his hopes and visions become a reality. My hope is that I can live with the same type of unwavering dedication.

"Faith doesn't mean that you don't have doubts.

You need to come to church in the first place precisely because you are first of this world, not apart from it. You need to embrace Christ precisely because you have sins to wash away - because you are human and need an ally in this difficult journey....

Moreover, given the increasing diversity of America's population, the dangers of sectarianism have never been greater. Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers.

And even if we did have only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools? Would we go with James Dobson's, or Al Sharpton's? Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is ok and that eating shellfish is abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount - a passage that is so radical that it's doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application? So before we get carried away, let's read our bibles. Folks haven't been reading their bibles.

This brings me to my second point. Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.

Now this is going to be difficult for some who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, as many evangelicals do. But in a pluralistic democracy, we have no choice. Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality. It involves the compromise, the art of what's possible. At some fundamental level, religion does not allow for compromise. It's the art of the impossible. If God has spoken, then followers are expected to live up to God's edicts, regardless of the consequences. To base one's life on such uncompromising commitments may be sublime, but to base our policy making on such commitments would be a dangerous thing...

...I said a prayer of my own. It's a prayer I think I share with a lot of Americans. A hope that we can live with one another in a way that reconciles the beliefs of each with the good of all. It's a prayer worth praying, and a conversation worth having in this country in the months and years to come. Thank you."