Kaitlyn Schiess

Whether you love politics or will do anything to avoid them, this book has something for you. “The Ballot and the Bible'' explores the way that scripture has been used in politics throughout history all the way up into the present. Schiess’s analysis is nuanced and avoids putting things into boxes based on if the person using the scripture was “on the right side of history.” There are clear examples of people who used scripture wrongly, those who had good intentions but not great hermeneutics, and those who used scripture to faithfully advocate for political change. The history in the book helps break down some of our preconceived notions and prepares the reader to get into the messier arena of current politics where our own biases are stronger.

Schiess’s book works on multiple levels: it’s a history, it encourages readers to question politicians who use scripture (no matter what party they are in), and it challenges readers to examine the way they use scripture as well. Since 2020 things have been politically charged in America, and both sides have been using biblical language or verses out of context to support their side. I have. I’m sure you have too. We can do better. This book is a great introduction to finding a way to interact with politics faithfully.… (mehr)

As someone who watches politicians use and abuse the Bible in ways and settings that feel absolutely contrary to my own faith (ex. Ted Cruz praying at Uvalde then planning to attend the NRA meeting that week), I was curious what Schiess might add to the discussion. She reviews several key periods from US history and the ways that the Bible was wielded publicly in each. This was not new info to me, but might be helpful to others. I wish there was a bit more of the "where do we go from here" because that is the real issue in my mind. Heaven help us, in this the election year of 2024.… (mehr)

I feel the author gives a balanced review of the political use of the Bible and Biblical language in American history. This includes example of usage by “both sides” to justify their actions, such as both Union and Confederate in the Civil War, and both Patriot and Loyalist in the Revolutionary War. In some cases, you find that both sides use the same Bible passage, just interpret it differently. Where appropriate, as part of the discussion, some non-American voices are heard, such as Augustine of Hippo, Martin Luther, and John Calvin. This helps to give context, as the Americans cited were not operating in a vacuum. I would recommend this book to anyone interested in delving deeper into the relationship of religion, specifically Christianity, with politics.… (mehr)

I'm a bit behind on this one. I found it a somewhat challenging read and I am at fault for that. It's rather clinical and academic. That's never a problem but some readers should be aware of that. She likes the word "hermaneutics." I like it too, ever since I learned about Alan Sokal's prank paper "Transgressing the Boundaries: Toward a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity", a nonsense paper submitted to and published by a prestigious journal without peer review, after which he revealed the hoax. Great word. But to use it throughout? Okay.

And, one should know where the author comes from. She has a ThM from Dallas Theological Seminary. I did not know that when I requested the book (I received a review copy from the publisher through LibraryThing). The title and subtitle are what caught my attention, though I admit I was expecting a different answer to "where we go from here." And that was clear to me when Ms. Schiess said this in her introduction: "That raises an important question at theheart of this book: How should Scripture inform our political beliefs?" (Her italics.) And I'm in the corner Should the bible inform political beliefs? No that's not being naive. I've read the book at the heart of this book. And I think there is far too wide a range of hermeneutics out there. Ms. Schiess does address how things can be - and are- twisted easily to fit the narrative, as well as how they are cherry-picked. I did like that.

So, who is this for? Christians willing to think about what she has to say. The prominent (and quite numerous) abusers won't read it, and would only double down on their positions, but then reason doesn't work on them. Perhaps Christians looking for an intellectual defense of their positions. If you are not a Christian, or still can't fathom how deeply rooted this subject is in American politics despite knowing the history, I'm not sure you'll learn much new. You will, however, read well-researched points with well-crafted analyses that are well-annotated. (I am a two-bookmark reader - I like notes in the main body.)

A few of my many flagged parts:

[on applying what may or may not be known of the historical details (disputed, of course) to understanding context when interpreting]
"While the historical situation is certainly relevant, many of these arguments should not be given too much weight: they often particularize the instructions to the point of meaninglessness for modern readers."

[on cherry picking]
"Perhaps no lesson is more salient from history than this: when it comes to interpreting the Bible in politics, we all cherry-pick verses."
{Cherry-picking is not limited to politics. Pretty much every interpretation to pull a single point is cherry-picked. This is not a surprise given the inconsistency and often contradictory messages. I'm cherry-picking statements from this book; can't be helped}

[on presidents]
"... Reagan is the president within recent memory who took on a unique mythology that excused his various sins and deviations from the conservative Christian norm."
{I became of voting age when Reagan came in. She's right about the mythology (read Will Bunch's book) and incongruity of how they reconciled Reagan with that norm. I mark 1980 as the start of a long slide backwards from progression. Oh, and she does talk about the former guy in his own chapter. That one flies in the face of any reason (though she does try to offer some.)}

[on Revelation, and how it is used in politics]
"Allan A. Boesak, South African pastor and anti-apartheid activist, wrote a commentary on Revelation that called the book a form of 'underground protest literature.'"
{I've learned from different reading that Revelation is a protest. It is a specific apocalypse chosen from many - of perhaps hundreds - extant at the time of choosing and the text, cryptic hallucinogenic visions aside (seems most of the existing ones are as wild), was a protest against the Roman rule.}

[conclusion]
"One difficulty with examining biblical arguments in American political life is the blurry line between direct reference and vague invocation of popular biblical language. [...] politicians, spiritual leaders, and government officials [...] don't have to quote a verse to invoke a kind of transcendence, divine authority, or shared religious experience."
{Ms. Schiess acknowledges shortly after that that the biblical language is watered down to a political talking point, but that nevertheless, it is still everywhere and that means people must want it and whatever message they want it to give them (my words, interpreting and summarizing.)… (mehr)