I can see why you might feel that way. However, let me take some time to explain why I approach people's actions in that manner.

As I mentioned before, grandstanding does exactly nothing to sway my view on any subject. A shocking stunt is merely a shocking stunt from an outside view, and it gives me no basis to determine whether the motives behind it are genuine and well-considered, or whether it is simply publicity-seeking.

I should mention that I am not a pacifist. However, I want to clear up the common misconception that because I accept the necessity of physical violence at times, that I am oblivious to the pain and trauma that violence does lead to, or that I am bloodthirsty in any manner. I simply have a different idea of where and how one addresses the problem of human hatred. (While this may seem like a digression at the moment, I hope you'll see at the end how I intend to add it all together.) It is my belief that by the point a violent act has been initiated, it is only in a minority of cases that anything but a physical defense will prevent the situation from blossoming into something even worse. The opportunity to avoid the fisticuffs was in fact earlier–it was in what people SAID to each other and the manner and tone in which they said it.

I believe that the tongue is the rudder that guides our personal "ship," as St. James said. And if we cannot learn to speak responsibly–to speak only when necessary, to speak truthfully, and to speak with with love and civility–then it is no wonder we will stoke the passions in others to a point where they lose control. AND no wonder that we will inflame our own hearts past the boiling point. If we say a thing often enough, it becomes a mantra to us: if we speak without restraint, soon it is not our mind that leads our tongue–it is the tongue that leads the mind and the heart. To speak with disrespect is to cultivate an attitude of disrespect even where one did not exist before.

Even to call one's brother "fool" (as opposed to saying in a non-condescending tone of voice, "Your position is illogical, and here is why"), Jesus equates to committing murder. When you verbally skewer someone, you might as well have used a bayonet. Let me illustrate. In my childhood, I had an instance where someone decided to push me onto the pavement–yet as much as that hurt, that incident is not one I think of very much in later years. It is the times when children spoke cruelly to me, and when teachers defended it or got in on the action themselves, that still haunt me to this day. Those are the things that brought me the closest to snapping…that on one occasions in high school, I am embarrassed to admit, became my excuse to me hit someone. (They did not MAKE me do it, of course, but resistance lowered, I know I used it as the justification.) Words did one heck of a lot more damage than the proverbial sticks and stones: you can verbally murder someone, except the destroyed person still lives, and they must carry it with them every day until they die.

When I see someone whose conduct reveals that getting their point across means they have the right to show disrespect to others, and when they cannot control their tempers or their glory-seeking tendencies, I see someone who may not be conscious that they are perpetuating the very problem they claim to be the solution to. I see someone who may be a loose cannon, whose logic cannot be trusted and whose motivation may be other than altruistic. When I am losing my temper at someone (or venting about them outside of their presence), I know very well that I am not in full control of myself or my faculties, nor am I listening to God very well in the midst of whatever vainglorious ranting I am doing (and believe me, as a writer, when I do come uncorked it can be a dangerous weapon ). Whether or not those things are ultimately true…I will not stick around long enough to find out. I want nothing to do with such conduct, nor would I (if I had a family) want them subjected to it.

I want to see in someone that their message is genuine. On the occasions where I have respected a pacifist's stance sufficiently to give it thought…and I will be honest–they are not many…it is because that person lived it. They did not grandstand, they did not condemn, and they seemed to fully understand the impact of their words on themselves and the world–that words, too, are a deadly weapon that must be handled according to the magnitude of their power and not thrown around carelessly like shotgun pellets. They adopted the complete mindset, not the political position–and you could sense it even from a simple e-mail, a whole aura they exuded.

You may have your political opinions. But show me that it is not about exalting oneself as superior or putting oneself on display. Show me that it is not about wielding one's power over others. Show me that it is not merely about opposition for the sake of opposition. Show me that it is not about the self over God. (All of these, I might add, are common motivators for physical violence. But I say again, these attitudes begin well before fists fly!) Show me that you understand the full implications of your position in how you live your day-to-day life, not in how you would handle an abstract scenario that is unlikely to ever occur in your life. Show me that your position comes from thought and prayer, not just sentiment. I'm tired of the personal slander, the false assumptions about people one does not even know in person, the constant need to shout down opposing voices, and the idea that the ends justify any and every means, however nasty they might be (while using that very same logical test to condemn those against whom they protest).

Or the way in which many mainline church leaders endorse every single democratic fiscal, domestic or international policy.

Again, since I'm real familiar with mainline circles, I'm sure who exactly you're referring to. Who in that realm does that sort of thing in the same way that Dobson, et al. does it on the Religious Right? Can you name names?

However, when you can't find anything of consequence in a particular political party's platform that a church or denomination disagrees with – then I think they are letting political ideology color their theology. For example the way Dobson or Falwell at times (with a few rare exceptions) seemed to endorse every single Republican fiscal and international policy. Or the way in which many mainline church leaders endorse every single democratic fiscal, domestic or international policy. If one is an independant who doesn't agree fully with either the Democrats or the Republicans, the "feel" one gets in such mainline "God votes Democrat" circles is, in my experience, very similar to the "feel" one gets in fundamentalist Baptist "God is a Republican" circles. Oppressive and depressing in both cases. One wears a more urbane, sophisticated and tolerant face, but the iron fist is still there inside the velvet glove.

I'm not sure that it's a fair assessment to say that either the conservative or the liberal churches are necessarily merely following a party line. A conservative church that speaks out against homosexuality is probably motivated first by their interpretation of scripture, not by Republican politics. However, if they start pushing trickle-down economics as biblical theology (and I have heard pastors say exactly that) that might be indicative that political ideology is trumping theology.

Likewise, a liberal congregation that endorses progressive policies may still yet be driven by their own understanding of Jesus' message or his vision of the kingdom of God, etc. and not primarily by a devotion to the Democratic party. Just because one's theological commitments will occasionally bring one in line with the values and goals of other groups doesn't necessarily mean that they are springing from the same well.

Great post and great comments! Very stimulating!

My thoughts exactly. The idea of having discussions on politics is nice in theory, but they rarely work out that way, and usually becomes one group pushing their beliefs on another. Despite what many on both the religious right and left say, separation of church and state is a beautiful thing.

I've experienced that from both sides of the political spectrum. In fundamentalism and conservative evangelicalism, I've had experiences similar to what you describe (God's Will = the Republican platform). And also in the Episcopal Church where, at least in our diocese, God's Will = the Democratic platform and woe to anyone who might question that reigning orthodoxy – it was every bit as heavy handed and closed-minded as what I'd experienced in fundamentalist circles.

Julie's suggestion that there should be a place in church for true dialogue on the implication of faith in politics sounds right to me. But how to get there if your faith community is in large majority supportive of one party or the other, I'm not sure.

Anyway, my church got all into it. They put signs up in the front lawn ("Marriage = Man + Woman"), held forums about how to fight against the "gay agenda", and discussed the subject in sermons and Sunday School.

As one who believes that constitutions exist to protect rights (no take them away), and as one who believes the Church is out-of-line in its handling of the gay community, I was really discouraged about the situation.

Convinced that the issue was "biblical," the congregation felt they were justified in making a political issue a church issue.

So whenever I think of local churches getting involved in politics, this is what I think of. I think that's why I like the idea of churches staying out of politics altogether.

The example may or may not hold water, but was intended to show in an obvious way that there are times, places and manners in which it would be inappropriate to raise even a legitimate concern that deserves attention (such as the plight of third world mothers). Julie and others have pointed out that perhaps political protest does belong in Church, where it might not belong in a hospital. I can see instances where that might be true, and can dialogue with her or you about what that might, or should, look like.

I agree with Julie that one's faith should cut across and affect all areas of life including politics, and that discussions of how faith impacts politics do belong in church and in Christian circles. But again I'd go to the time, place and manner concept. The protesters' actions don't look like "discussion" to me, and still seem grossly inappropriate regardless of the setting. And even leaving aside whether they were inappropriate or not, they couldn't have been designed to be less effective (as far as changing the minds of people who disagree or are on the fence) if they had intentionally tried to do so.

As for being unchristlike, since Julie is a Christian pastor and I am also a Christian, that's a concern both she and I share (although as you point out determining what would be "Christlike" in a given circumstance isn't always easy). I shouldn't have assumed it was a concern of yours as well. But I'd guess that you do have some concerns that your actions be just and fair and loving – even if they take the form of a protest that seems harsh to some.