American Christians (namely the Religious Right) see things in such a backwards, upside down way. We have really taken the Bible and God, thrown it all into a blender with our own thoughts and ideas, and created TV shows and books to spread the results.
For example, I once heard a former youth pastor of mine say that he'll always vote Republican because Democrats support abortion. He said that he'd gotten into an argument once about Bill Clinton with a friend. That friend had pointed out that Clinton had better economic ideas than George H.W. Bush, and my youth pastor's rebuttal was that he believed in abortion--end of story. Well, I agree that abortion is an evil thing. However, I don't understand how the Democrats' support of abortion is really any different than the Republicans' support of dropping a cruise missile on women and children. It's okay to kill full grown children and their mothers, because that is a side effect of war--which spreads "democracy."
So many people hinge their vote on gay marriage. Many democrats support it, so Christians should vote Republican, right? Here's the thing. If we ban gay marriage, does that stop homosexuality? Better yet, let's talk about all moral issues--prohibition, homosexual marriages, abortion, filth on the airwaves, you name it. If we ban those, does that bring people any closer to Jesus? What I mean is: if we create a list of rules, how are we any different than the Jews of the Old Testament? It's like we're trying to eliminate the need for Jesus. If we just force people not to sin, they won't need Jesus, right? Please note the sarcasm in that last sentence.
Listen, I have nothing against trying to lead a moral life. I have nothing against wanting a moral society to raise our children in. What I am trying to point out is that moral laws should not be our first priority as Christian voters. What about social activism and justice? Why aren't we focussed on offering welfare to the poor, medical aid to all people, foreign aid to Southeast Asia and Africa, and fair trade laws? Isn't this what Jesus meant when he said, "Whatever you do to the least of these, you have done to me"?
Here's a little biblical study that I did:
"Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world."
- James 1:27
Notice that James (being totally inspired by God Almighty as he wrote this) writes that both social action and morals are important. Social action, of course, is shown through the phrase "to look after orphans and widows in their distress." Morality is shown through the phrase "to keep oneself from being polluted by the world." What order did James write these in? James put social action BEFORE morality in this passage about what God calls pure, faultless religion. Now, maybe you disagree that James is putting social action at higher importance than morality. You must agree, thought, that James (at the VERY least) is EQUATING social action and morality. Even in this statement, the error of our ways is shown. It proves that the Religious Right is rather wrong. Christians should be walking down the center, even between the moral issues of the Right Wing Conservatives and the social issues of the Left Wing Liberals. In other words, Christians shouldn't just be seen by what they don't do. We should strive very hard to be know by what we DO do--like the old hymn "They'll know we are Christians by our love, by our love."
This, of course, is only addressing the issues of social action and morality--if we define morality simply as those moral issues that are raised in the public arena of politics, namely abortion and gay marriage and FCC vulgarity regulations. There are still several other issues that Christians support despite several Bible passages. Here's a condensed list:
Capitalism
- Christians in Acts sold all their belongings and support those in need with the money. In other words, they were a pure form of Communism.
- Paul and Jesus both say the love of money is evil.
- James says not to show favoritism to the rich--that would include "kissing up" or "brown nosing" to get ahead in this cutthroat Capitalist economy.
- Jesus tells Peter that "whoever lives by the sword will die by the sword." I believe he tells him to put away the sword. Odd.
- Jesus says "turn also your right cheek" if you are slapped. Call me crazy, but I think that was just a microcosmic example of something he wanted to apply to the macrocosm--like bombings and hijackings.
- There is no Biblical reasoning behind the war on terror, unless you count "There was war in the Old Testament"--which is clearly a very weak argument.
- I know that this is a vague subject, but I just wanted to point something out. Is it not hypocritical to vote for someone who has committed adultery (e.g.- Tim Hutchinson and many others) in order to ensure that the sanctity of marriage is protected from Gays being able to wed? I know that this is not the only reason people I know voted for Mr. Hutchinson a couple of years ago, but it does seem quite hypocritical.
- Assassination. Pat Robertson called for the assassination of Venezualan President Hugo Chavez. Do I even have to back this up? This is just common sense that Mr. Robertson was showing clear hypocrisy. "Thall shalt not murder."
6 comments:
In a bible study, I once stated that Jesus seemed like a Communist. People assumed I was being disrespectful because Communism is such a horrific thing to Americans, but I realized then how beautiful the idea of Communism is. Then to counter my comment, I might not have the laptop I'm typing on if my government were not a capitalist government.
John Heavner
I think the "Riligious Right" misrepresents Jesus, and it irks me. You've written an accurate, scathing statement about some of the major problems with the right wing of this country.
James,
What you say is very accurate. It is hard for many christians, especially those in the Bible belt, to discriminate between the Republican party and the right hand of God.
There is a sense in which it is good to attempt to craft a legal system that recognizes some kind of natural law at the core of things. A society's laws tend, to no small degree, to shape perceptions about what is right and wrong. (I conceede here that there is a chicken/egg aspect to this argument. But that aside.) We don't want to be legalists as christians. However, a society made up of unsaved, depraved individuals, as all societies as we know them on earth must be, will be a better society if values are forced on it through laws. What I mean here is that citizens in a society made up of non-christians are better off living a legalisticly moral life, in that they are moral because it is illegal to be immoral, than they are to simply live immorally. In other words, whether legalism is the cause or not, it is always better to not kill babies than it is to kill them.
This is a sticky argument--far too sticky for me to have done anything but add glue in this short space.
I do agree whole-heartedly that the Christian Right has it assbackwards. Their political values, if I can generalize, are in no real way informed by their faith. Someone has seen fit to use faith, that it's adhearents hardly understand, to manipulate them politically. This is nothing new.
James, I'm not sure I'm going to say a great deal here, because I know that if my argument has a flaw it would be subject to a thashing from much more able minds, namely yours. I've learned putting one's thoughts into print is a dangerous thing to do.
However, I would like to hear your answers to a few questions. You claim that voting for a "moral" issue does not do much good, it does not change the morality of the people much. I can easily grant you that. However, if you plan to take this pragmatic approach, I wonder how much a socialistic government actually does for the poor. History and current events show that socialistic governments are usually far worse off than the U.S.
Secondly, you claim that it is hypocritical to vote for a candidate whose life does not match his/her policy. Once again I will give you this. But, I do not believe Republicans are alone. President Clinton sure didn't mind the shady real estate deals that landed him a great deal of money, nor the multi-million dollar book contract. I don't recall any great philanthropists on the democratic ballot.
I think you may be taking the turn the other cheek thing to an exreme not originally intended. Jesus was speaking to a heart of forgiveness. When he challanged us not to loan but to give, I do not believe that means that you are not Christ-like if I ask to borrow your S.G. for a recording session and you do not offer to give it to me indefinately. I don't want to go to far on the pacifist idea, but I will agree with you that revenge is undoubtably wrong. The question we must ask ourselves is whether the war on terror is vengeful, or an attempt to protect the world from evil acts. I will have you observe that there have been no attacks on American soil since 9-11. I doubt the terrorists have remained silent of their own volition.
My final thought is possibly my greatest problem with your teachings on politics and religion. You claim that making rules and regulations for morality is the same as the pharisees' legalistic rule. How would a socialistic government be any different. You are regulating charity. I highly doubt that paying social sercurity earns you a jewel in the crown. Socialism might be alright, but don't claim it is the "Christian" government. This is foolish. As is saying that capitalism is the "Christian" government. The need for government is a sign of our depravity.
In short James, I think Christ was more concerned with individual life change and obedience. Large group forced conforment does not foster this. I will agree with you, the republican party is wrong in about as many ways as the the democratic party. My main encouragement to you is to remember this, the Kingdom of God is the weightiest glory we will know. This post of yours ties your religion closely to your politics, and politics is dirty business. I pray that Christians will stop running Christ's name through the muck of their politics. While Christ was here, his concern was not politics, but the hearts of men. "Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's." Christ's message was too big to let it be watered down to politics. Does Christ want us to give to the poor, absolutely. But I believe it is the responsibilty of the church, not the government. However, you are much more educated spiritually and socially aware than I, so I admit that I may be way off
Nick, I in no way said that we should have a socialist government. However, I do think that the motivations of capitalism are unbiblical. I also mentioned that there were plenty of democrats in the wrong as far as political hypocrisy. However, it is not the democrats that we currently associate the church with. What I was trying to point out is that our right wing philosophy as Christians is wrong. A left wing philosophy would also be wrong. However, I have no need to argue that, because the American church is not identified with left wing thoughts. I think that the best approach is somewhere in the middle of these two parties. I also don't think we shouldn't have laws based on morality. I just want it to be noted that our first priority is for people to be drawn to Jesus, not morals. I do believe we're unintentionally trying to eliminate a need for Jesus in America. We're trying to handle things on our own. I also want to point out that morals are worthless if we don't have Jesus. Morals are also worthless if we don't in turn look after the needy. Social causes are also worthless if we don't have Jesus. Nick, honestly, I think you misread a lot of what I said man. I in no way said we should have one form of government over another. In fact, I said quite the opposite. Honestly, my purpose was to point out what your last statements were. We can't rely on a this political party (nor the other). Our goal is not to enforce politics, our goal is to live like Christ. That is certainly my main point with moral laws. I think that creating laws as a country to conduct morals is secondary to living out those morals and secondary to Christ. I don't condone abortion, but I do see hypocrisy in using weapons that too easily kill bystanders that mostly include women and children. As far as this whole idea of having a socialist government, I never said that. I don't think socialism works in a world filled with sin--too much greed and too many egos. However, I think we should have a very communist ideology as Christians. That's what the church in Acts was--a bunch of people who shared equally and looked out for all in need. I definitely believe it's our job and our duty to look after the "least of these."
In short, Nick, I'm not a democrat. Clearly we can see I'm not a republican. My point is not to say that the Christian vote is guy with a D by his name. My point is that Christians have limited their scope greatly of what's important on a ballot--I think there is much much more to think about than gay marriage and abortion laws when weighing out our vote. One last example to protect myself from ridicule about saying we should think about more than abortion laws. Is it any more moral to stop children from being medically killed while watching children starve to death? I think to stand by and watch either happen is equally immoral. However, I think we can look at numbers of deaths to see that far more children are dying from disease/starvation/poverty every day in the world. Yes, I say the world, because Americans need to understand that America isn't any more important than the rest of the world.
I can completely appreciate where you're coming from. As a matter of fact, I think when we get past "political terminology" you and I probably agree on almost everything. I think I am just very sensitive to allowing politics to become a dividing point among the church. I sometimes feel that in a revolt to the right-wing fundamentalists movement, some Christians take on a very offensive stance to this political bias in the church. I am very fearful of a divided church. I think the main point that you will disagree with me on is this, I believe both sides of politics sincerely are seeking for the common good. They just believe in different methods of doing this. Christ teaches that "peacemakers will be called sons of God." I merely hope that we approach disagreements of method with peace and not harsh criticism. Nevertheless, I do greatly respect you and look up to you. You're a good man who shows a sincere concern for giving Christ's love to the world. In this respect and many others, you and I are in the same boat. Your love is returned. Did everyone hear that? I LOVE JAMES MILLER! Sorry, I saw wake up Ron Burgundy for the first time last night.
Post a Comment