Walk into the average evangelical church, and to some extent even mainstream churches, and ask for a show of hands: How many of you are registered Democrats? I can tell you the response would be sparse. So how has it happened that the Republican Party has become the default political affiliation for those who belong to the Christian faith? And how is it that many self-identified Christians look askance at other Christians who are registered Democrats or who cop to being [gasp!] liberal or left-leaning?
According to Frank Schaeffer, in his book Crazy for God, “Evangelicals weren’t politicized (at least not in the current meaning of the word) until after Roe v. Wade and after [religious leaders] stirred them up over the issue of abortion.” Schaeffer goes on to chronicle how the single issue of abortion became the litmus test for the Republican Party’s choice of candidates and right-wing voters’ willingness to support a candidate.
Schaeffer also says:
Bush Jr. was the “Christians’” president. So it was bitterly ironic that Bush Jr. was personally responsible for, amongst other self-inflicted horrors, the persecution, displacement, and destruction of the one million, three hundred thousand-person beleaguered Christian minority in Iraq. They had fared much better under the secular regime of Saddam Hussein . . .
It bears repeating: Bush Jr., the Bible-believing, born-again president, delivered up his Iraqi fellow Christians to be destroyed. They fled, died, or went into hiding because a “faith-based” evangelical American president stupidly unleashed a civil war.
Mr. Schaeffer has much more to say on the subject; for those who are interested, it’s in chapter 57.
I’d like to select just one more quotation:
It seems to me that by demanding ideological purity on abortion (and other single issues as well), both parties have worked to eliminate the sorts of serious smart pragmatic people who make competent leaders. What we are left with are those willing to toe the party theological line . . .
But what if absolute consistency on any issue from the left or the right, religious or secular, is an indication of mediocre intelligence and a lack of intellectual honesty? What if the world is a complex place? What if leadership requires flexibility?
Obviously, these are Frank Schaeffer’s opinions and interpretations, and readers are free to agree or disagree with what he says. I’d like to focus on this statement, with which I strongly agree: “It seems to me that by demanding ideological purity on abortion (and other single issues as well), both parties have worked to eliminate the sorts of serious smart pragmatic people who make competent leaders.” George W. Bush left the White House almost eight years ago, and abortion is still legal. So what did the Right gain by electing a “pro-life” president who did not succeed in reversing Roe v. Wade (as they wished) but who did lead our country into two wars which have cost thousands of lives, billions of dollars, and irreparable damage to our national morale? I’d say they made a really bad deal.
I know many people who question how any Christian can possibly belong to a party that condones abortion, and I would ask those same people how they possibly can belong to a party that condones the racism and disrespect that Republicans have shown President Obama for the last eight years. Although I am not in complete agreement with the Democratic Party’s views on abortion, I believe the Republican Party belies its passion for life by disrespecting life and human dignity in many other actions and policies. Making abortion an extreme religious issue polarized views to the extent that, in my opinion, all intelligent discussion on the subject was cut off.
That being said, let’s look at some of the major differences between the current Republican and Democratic Parties. The two parties differ on many issues, but the most incendiary for most people are social issues and social programs. As already stated, abortion has been a moral battleground for decades, with marriage rights, LGBT rights, and gun ownership becoming equally intense and polarizing in more recent years. And very recently, we’ve added bathroom wars and gender identity to the list. Democrats as a group support government social programs such as welfare, unemployment, food stamps, and health care for people in need and approve of their tax dollars being used to support those programs. Republicans as a group are less willing to allocate tax dollars for social programs and prefer allowing private organizations to attend to the needs of the less fortunate. Of course, there are other differences, but these seem to be the real battlegrounds between the two parties. And these are also the reasons many Christians believe the only party they can in good conscience belong to is the one that opposes abortion, same-sex marriage, stricter regulation on gun ownership (I’ll never understand that one!), changes to traditional gender definitions, and giving “hand-outs” to those “too lazy to work like the rest of us.”
Regardless of where one stands on any one of those issues, choosing either party based on just one thing out of the list and declaring that party the only choice for people of faith can lead only to inconsistency and hypocrisy. How does one reconcile being anti-abortion and pro-guns? Life is life, right? How do those who so rigidly oppose welfare programs convince themselves they are following Jesus’ teachings to love and care for the poor, to give the cup of cold water in his name? The list could go on and on, but suffice it to say that anyone who values consistency can’t choose a party or cast a vote based on any single issue.
Someone recently shared with me an article titled “Wake Up, Christians. There Is No Place for You in the Democrat Party,” by a blogger named Matt Walsh. Mr. Walsh addresses his article to someone named Lana who has emailed him that she is proudly both a Christian and a Democrat. His response, long on sarcasm and ridicule, short on reason and logic, begins:
Please don’t misunderstand me. A Christian can certainly be a Democrat, just like a Christian can be a Buddhist, or a Christian can be a Scientologist, or a Christian can worship a goat or a join a suicide cult. Christians can do anything and believe anything while still retaining the title of Christian — that is, so long as we define “Christian” as “Someone who says they are one.” It’s no surprise that Democrats would define the term in such a way, seeing as how these days they even define “man” and “woman” that way. In the liberal world, in order to be something all one must do is declare that they are that thing. This is a view shared by my 3-year-old and by Michael Scott from “The Office,” who famously declared bankruptcy by standing outside and shouting, “I declare bankruptcy!”
Walsh goes on to offer this definition:
A Christian, by definition, believes that Christ is the Son of God; that He was sent to Earth to suffer and die for our sins, opening up the gates of Heaven for all who follow Him (John 3:16). If we accept and believe this great Truth, we are Christian. And we remain Christian even if we stumble, sin, and fall short of perfection, as I have done and continue to do more often than I care to admit.
Moving on, Walsh makes this statement:
I’m saying that being a “loyal Democrat,” as you describe yourself, requires that you fundamentally reject the authority of Christ. Not in the sense of sinning and falling short, but in the sense of actually disbelieving and condemning some of His most important teachings and some of the most essential lessons of Scripture.
Huh? That contradicts my experience because some of the finest Christians I know are Democrats, just as some are Republicans. I don’t associate people’s faith with their political party.
And there’s more:
The question is this: Can you believe that Christ is Lord and that the Holy Bible is the inspired Word of God and also believe that Christ was, in some cases, a liar or a fool, and that the inspired Word of God needs to be trimmed and updated? And if you disbelieve these massive chunks of the Bible, how can you believe in Christ, considering the Bible tells us about Christ? And if you don’t believe everything Christ said, how can you believe that He is Lord, considering we only know that He is Lord because He told us? You can believe and fall short at the same time, but can you believe in Christianity and resolutely reject its precepts at the same time?
Am I the only person wondering right now what these massive chunks of Scripture are which he is implying (I think) that the entire Democratic Party denies or disbelieves?
Walsh then launches into a long rant about abortion and at the end tacks on a few thoughts about same-sex relationships and transgender people. Finally, he begins his conclusion with the line “So, can you be a Christian and agree with the Democrats on all of these points? The answer is clearly no.” So there. You are no longer a Christian because some guy named Matt Walsh says you’re not.
I mention Mr. Walsh’s article because it so clearly articulates the thinking of many other evangelicals with whom I’ve spoken in person. I have many questions for this writer; one of them is this: Does anyone—Republican, Democrat, or one of the third parties—agree on ALL points with the party platform? Or do most of us choose the party that most closely fits our personal values in both word and spirit, even though we have points of disagreement?
I respect people who choose to label themselves independents or who opt to belong to a party other than the two major parties. I have chosen to be a registered Democrat (and a Christian) because in the state of Florida, independents are not allowed to vote in primary elections; and although some of the third parties seem to have a great deal to offer and will hopefully some day grow to exercise more clout, right now, they don’t have the clout necessary to fight undesirable majority-party candidates.
Contrary to Matt Walsh’s definition, I believe a Christian is one who is committed to following the teachings and example of Jesus; and those teachings and that example do not include membership in any particular political party. Jesus famously responded to someone trying to trap him into making a statement about the relationship of faith to politics: “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.” I don’t know about anyone else, but I think Jesus just made the very first statement regarding separation of church and state, and I believe those who are committed to living by his example may choose either political party or no political party without compromising their faith.
I strongly believe in the sanctity of life, but I believe that includes all life. If we loved and cared for those in need as Jesus taught, we might have fewer crisis pregnancies. We would have more efficient systems for adopting children who sometimes wait years to be placed in forever homes. We would take better care of our veterans. We would do our best to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people. We wouldn’t threaten programs like Social Security and Medicare which are the life support of the oldest among us. We would try to help those who have come to us in desperation, seeking a better life for themselves and their families instead of threatening them with wholesale deportation. We would love transgender persons, whether or not we understand them. We would allow people to find love and happiness with their partners of choice, even if we don’t understand or approve. And yes, we’d have some intelligent discussions about abortion instead of waving signs on one side and parroting catchy slogans on the other side; we’d listen to each other and work to do what’s best for the most helpless among us.
I’ve concluded that it’s not my job to attempt to legislate how other people live their lives so long as those people are living peaceably and not harming others. No one needs my approval, and no one will be changed by my disapproval. Those who sincerely attempt to follow the example set by Jesus will not attempt to police the 7.4 billion other human beings currently living on our planet and impose their values on them. Jesus didn’t. Jesus didn’t vet people before he fed or healed them. The only people with whom he got testy were the Pharisees, who were the local hypocrites. He taught people how they should live but didn’t reject those who deviated from his teachings. He showed love and forgiveness to all he met. Can those who claim to be his followers say the same?
The most vocal Christians today, the Matt Walshes and others, teach a view of Christianity greatly at odds with the teachings of the one who founded their faith. There is little love or acceptance in their actions and a great deal of judgment and rigidity, and they have found a home in the modern Republican Party. I, however, cannot belong to a party that values gun ownership over public safety or that protects the lives of the unborn but disrespects the lives of immigrants and people of other faiths or ethnicities or lifestyles. I can’t belong to a party whose lawmakers have spent the last almost eight years doing nothing but obstruct, instead of the job they were sent to Washington to do, just to spite a black president and make sure they diminish his legacy. I can’t belong to a party that would shut down the government and jeopardize the citizens they were elected to serve in order to defeat the president’s signature piece of legislation. I can’t belong to a party whose lawmakers refuse to perform their constitutional duty of interviewing and voting on the sitting president’s Supreme Court appointee. Racism, disrespect, and failure to perform duties—none of those qualities are Christ-like; yet Christians accept the people who practice such ungodly behavior because those same people toe the party line of being opposed to abortion, same-sex marriage, and transgender rights. Wow!
And last of all, I absolutely cannot support the party which has perpetrated the greatest fraud I have witnessed in my lifetime: foisting upon voters a reality TV clown as a candidate for the high office of the presidency of the United States. This “candidate” exemplifies none of the Christian values with which I am familiar, yet he has the overwhelming support of the religious right. The Republican Party has placed voters in the unthinkable position of having only one viable candidate. And since that candidate is one who is widely disliked and distrusted, many will vote for the clown and rue the fact that they were not given an acceptable choice.
The fact is there is plenty in the ideology of both political parties that is out of harmony with the Christian faith; but if we’re giving to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s, I don’t believe we should expect politics and religion always to agree. So yes, I’m a Christian and I’m a Democrat, and I think I’m in good company. “Christian Democrat” is not an oxymoron; it describes some of the finest and most godly people I know.