Categories
Politics Religion

Putting Christ Back in Christianity: Thank You, Reverend Curry

Early on Saturday morning by East Coast U.S.A. time, Prince Harry and Meghan Markle delighted the world with a royal fairy tale, which from what I could see was perfect in every detail. One of the highlights of the morning was the sermon delivered by the Most Reverend Michael Curry, presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church,  who fired up the pulpit of Saint George’s Chapel with a passion that stunned the royal audience, accustomed to much more stately orations. Media commentators scanned the congregation and remarked over the surprised and confused facial expressions.

I’m going to venture that the sermon was met with equal befuddlement among the most vocal branch of American “commoners” who claim Christianity as their religion yet seem to know nothing about the life of its namesake. Not only was this message a sharp departure from the sermons familiar at most royal events but it was also a sharp departure from the sermons and daily rants of the God, Guns, and Glory branch of what is currently being passed off as Christianity in the United States. If this religion bears a remote  resemblance to anything in the Bible, it would be the philosophy and practice of the Pharisees,  to whom Jesus said:

“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint, dill, and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. It is these you ought to have practiced without neglecting the others. You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel!

 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and of the plate, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. You blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup, so that the outside also may become clean.

“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which on the outside look beautiful, but inside they are full of the bones of the dead and of all kinds of filth. So you also on the outside look righteous to others, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.”

This is Matthew 23: 23-28. The whole chapter is worth a read.

In sharp contrast to those modern “Christians” who merit this same admonition are the refreshing words of the Reverend Curry. For those who like your Saturday sleep more than strangers’ weddings, as well as those who watched and listened but would welcome the opportunity to peruse these words at your own pace and reflect on the beauty of their truth, here is Reverend Curry’s sermon. This, my friends, is Christianity in its undefiled state.

“The late Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. once said, and I quote: ‘We must discover the power of love, the redemptive power of love. And when we discover that, we will be able to make of this old world a new world. Love is the only way.’

“There’s power in love. Do not underestimate it. Don’t even over-sentimentalize it. There’s power, power in love. If you don’t believe me, think about a time when you first fell in love. The whole world seemed to center around you and your beloved. There’s power, power in love, not just in its romantic forms, but any form, any shape of love. There’s a certain sense in which when you are loved and you know it, when someone cares for you and you know it, when you love and you show it. It actually feels right. There’s something right about it. There’s a reason for it. It has to do with the source.

“We were made by a power of love. Our lives were meant and are meant to be lived in that love. That’s why we are here. Ultimately the source of love is God himself. The source of all of our lives.

“There’s an old medieval poem that says: ‘Where true love is found, God himself is there.’ The New Testament says it this way. ‘Beloved, let us love one another, because love is of God; And those who love are born of God and know God. Those who not love does not know God. Why? For God is love.’

“There’s power in love. There’s power in love to help and heal when nothing else can. There’s power in love to lift up and liberate when nothing else will. There’s power in love to show us the way to live. … But love is not only about a young couple. The power of love is demonstrated by the fact that we’re all here. Two young people fell in love, and we all showed up. It’s not just for and about a young couple whom we rejoice with. It’s more than that.

“Jesus of Nazareth on one occasion was asked by a lawyer to sum up the essence of the teachings of Moses. He went back and reached back to the Hebrew Scriptures to Deuteronomy and Leviticus, and Jesus said, ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your mind and all your strength. This is the first and great commandment. The second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself.’ Then in Matthew’s version, he added, he said, on these two, love of God and love of neighbor, hang all the law, all the prophets, everything that Moses wrote, everything from the holy prophets, everything in the scriptures, everything that God has been trying to tell the world. Love God, love your neighbors, and while you’re at it, love yourself.

“Someone once said that Jesus began the most revolutionary movement in human history: a movement ground on the unconditional love of God for the world and a movement mandating people to live and love.

“And in so doing, to change not only their lives but the very life of the world itself! I’m talking about the power, real power, power to change the world.

“If you don’t believe me, well, there were some old slaves in America’s antebellum South who explained the dynamic power of love and why it has the power to transform. They explained it this way. They sang a spiritual even in the midst of their captivity. It’s one that says there is a balm in Gilead, a healing balm, something that can make things right. There is a balm in Gilead to make the wounded whole. There is a balm in Gilead to heal the sin-sick soul. One of the stanzas explains why: It says, if you cannot preach like Peter, you cannot pray like Paul, you just tell the love of Jesus, how he died to save us all. That’s the balm in Gilead. This way of love is the way of life. They got it.

“He died to save us all. He didn’t die for anything he could get out of it. Jesus did not get an honorary doctorate for dying. He wasn’t getting anything out of it. He gave up his life, he sacrificed his life for the good of others, for the well-being of the world, for us. That’s what love is. Love is not selfish or self-centered. Love can be sacrificial, and in so doing, become redemptive. That way of unselfish, sacrificial, redemptive love changes lives. And it can change this world.

“Stop and imagine for a minute. Think and imagine. Think and imagine a world where love is the way.

“Imagine our homes and families when love is the way. Imagine our neighborhoods and communities where love is the way. Imagine governments and nations where love is the way. Imagine business and commerce when love is the way. Imagine this tired old world when love is the way. When love is the way — unselfish, sacrificial, redemptive — when love is the way, then no child will go to bed hungry in this world ever again. When love is the way, we will let justice roll down like a mighty stream, and righteousness like an ever-flowing brook.

“When love is the way, poverty would become history. When love is the way, the earth will be a sanctuary. When love is the way, we will lay our swords and shields down by the riverside to study war no more. When love is the way, there’s plenty of room for all of God’s children. When love is the way, we actually treat each other, well, like we are actually family. When love is the way, we know that God is the source of us all, and we are brothers and sisters and children of God. Brothers and sisters — that’s a new heaven, a new earth, a new world, a new human family. Let me tell you something. Ol’ Solomon was right in the Old Testament. That’s fire.

“French Jesuit Pierre Teilhard de Chardin was arguably one of the great minds, great spirits of the 20th century. Jesuit, Roman Catholic priest, scientist, a scholar, a true mystic. Some of his writings from his scientific background as well as his theological one, some of his writings said, as others have said, that the discovery and harnessing of fire was one of the great technological discoveries of human history. Fire, to a great extent, made human civilization possible. Fire made it possible to cook food and to provide sanitary ways of eating, which reduced the spread of disease in its time. Fire made it possible to heat warm environments and thereby marking human migration a possibility even into colder climates. Fire made it possible — there was no Bronze Age without fire, no Iron Age without fire, no Industrial Revolution without fire. … Anybody get here in a car today? An automobile? Nod your heads if you did; I know there were some carriages. Those of us who came in cars, the controlled, harnessed fire made that possible.

“I know that the Bible says, and I believe it that Jesus walked on water, but I have to tell you I didn’t walk across the Atlantic Ocean to get here. Controlled fire in that plane got me here. Fire makes it possible for us to text, and tweet, and email, and Instagram, and Facebook, and socially be dysfunctional with each other. Fire makes that possible, and de Chardin said fire was one of the great discoveries in all of human history. He went on to say if humanity ever harnesses the energy of fire again, if humanity ever captured the energies of love, it will be the second time in the history that will have discovered fire.

“Dr. King was right. We must discover love, the redemptive power of love. And when we do that, we will be able to make of this old world a new world.

“My brother, my sister, God love you, God bless you. And may God hold us all in those almighty hands of love.”

Thank you, Reverend Michael Curry, for telling millions of early-morning TV watchers that the Christianity of Jesus is still alive!

 

Categories
In the News Politics Religion

Hurricanes, Hubris, and Humanity

On Sunday, September 10, 2017, I had an orchestra-level seat for what was promised to be the most spectacular show Mother Nature has ever produced in this section of the world. Hurricane Irma—or just Irma in Florida talk—having already decimated a few islands in the Caribbean and the Florida Keys, roared toward my coast of the Florida mainland with Category 4 intensity. By the time it reached my neighborhood, it had weakened to Category 2—still enough to do major damage and, if the forecasts regarding storm surge had become reality, enough to flood every house in my community. A slight last-minute shift to the east spared us such catastrophic results. My home and my neighbors’ homes are all intact; and even though our yards look like war zones, we have much to be grateful for.

I took shelter at my oldest son’s house, which is farther inland than mine and built like a small fortress. Because of the wind direction and the shape of the house, we were able to watch all but the final, and fiercest, 20 to 30 minutes from a secure corner of his front porch. As I stood there beholding in awe giant trees blown about like small daisies and a probably 40- to 50-foot pine gradually lose its grip on the earth and finally topple to the ground, my philosophical mind reflected on the awesome power of nature and the place of human beings in the grand scheme of the universe. And I marveled that any species of creature could ever have been given to such hubris as to believe we could control those forces being unleashed before my eyes.

That spectacle affirmed for me once again that modern humans, although we arrogantly fancy ourselves the smartest creatures ever to grace Planet Earth, often live like the dumbest. We have built a world dependent on electricity and technology, oblivious to the fact that one act of Nature can plunge us right back into the primordial darkness from whence we emerged. Yet unlike our more primitive ancestors, or even some contemporaries in less “developed” countries, we are woefully under-equipped to live in such conditions. We sometimes can’t even figure out what to do when one traffic light is out at an intersection. Throughout my four days without electricity in the wake of Irma, I mechanically flipped switches in my house with one hand even while holding a flashlight in my other hand—so habitual is our dependence on humanly generated power.

In our hubris, we modern humans have considered ourselves the most powerful forces in the universe. Watching Irma’s strength up close was a graphic reminder of how weak and impotent we really are. In our hubris, we have forgotten the only power we have in the universe lies in respect for and cooperation with Nature; yet we instead live in defiance of Nature, as if we fancy ourselves more powerful than wind, fire, and water. We’re not.

Living in harmony with nature and in community with fellow humans are habits which primitive peoples practiced instinctively. We modern humans build buildings that rely on artificial climate control to be habitable, so Nature has to keep reminding us of our foolishness by periodically turning off the juices on which we depend for survival; then as soon as the crisis has passed, we revert to our old habits and take refuge in the hubristic belief that we’re in control. We’re not.

What can be learned from Irma and from her concurrent natural disasters in other parts of our country and the world?

A good place to begin is learning the difference between the word “believe” and the expression “believe in”; in other words, the difference between science and theology. “Believing in” implies choosing to believe as fact something not supported by factual evidence. Humans choose to believe in God or not believe in God; and although both groups cite evidence, little of it is factual. “Believing in” is in general a theological term; it applies to the existence of God, along with the tenets of the specific system of theology to which one ascribes. “Believing in” does not apply to scientific information.

The options for scientific data are either believing the facts as presented or disbelieving one set of facts and rebutting it with another set of facts which one considers more reliable and accurate. Citing some vague theological principle in refutation of scientific data is not an intelligent option; it is evidence of gross ignorance and irresponsibility, and such ignorance endangers our planet and the future of its human habitation.

Every natural disaster—hurricane, earthquake, flood, fire—turns on the chorus of ignorant voices proclaiming that such disasters are wake-up calls from God, because God is pissed at us for allowing gay people to get married and allowing fetal humans to be aborted. God is raining down judgment upon us for failing to follow what those people believe are God’s laws.

I agree natural disasters are wake-up calls, but what we need to wake up to is not some angry God meting out justice on disobedient human beings. What we need to wake up to is our own arrogance, selfishness, and irresponsibility. We have to wake up to the fact that, in our relationship with nature, our only control is respect.

After every disaster, those voices proclaim, “This is not the time to talk about climate change.” If not now, when? What time would you like to discuss the abundance of scientific data that tells us the results of our hubris and our reckless lifestyles? Perhaps after all of the debris piles have been cleared, the roofs replaced, and the demolished structures rebuilt? Would that be a better time to have the discussion? When Harvey and Irma are just names in the history books and recalcitrant humans have returned to their “normal” lives, Harvey and Irma just unpleasant memories—flukes which “couldn’t possibly” happen again?

Smart people called scientists have been telling us for years that natural disasters are increasing in frequency and intensity, and they’ve been telling us why: our climate is changing, and humans are a large part of the cause. Our hubristic defiance of nature has caused us to live recklessly, placing personal comfort above care for our home planet and the more than 7 billion other people with whom we share it.

Ignorant people continue to parrot the angry-God theory over the careless-humans theory, and we all suffer the consequences of that ignorance. And just a quick question to myself and others who smugly proclaim intelligent belief of scientific data: How has that belief altered the way you’re living your life? Yes, I believe what scientists say; but no, I have not done as much as I could do to educate myself on what I as an individual should be doing in response to that information.

Many of the people who scoff at climate change science scream from their soap boxes about aborted babies; yet the same science which peeks into the womb and gives us a day-by-day report of what goes on during those 40 weeks which each of us spent in utero tells us we’re in imminent danger if we don’t do something to reverse climate change. The same science that allows meteorologists to track hurricanes and predict with a fair degree of accuracy where, when, and with what intensity they will strike tells us we’re part of the cause. Science is science. Humans don’t get to cherry pick which parts to believe and which parts to dismiss. My denial or your denial does not change facts.

Humans need to adjust their theology. Not everyone will choose to believe in God, but those who do believe need to review their concept of who and what God is. If I saw God as the angry old man raining down judgment and punishment on disobedient humans, I’d probably join the ranks of unbelievers. An angry God conjuring up disasters and then dispatching them as revenge upon rebellious mortals is the stuff of mythology. God does not create hurricanes, tornadoes, fires, floods, tsunamis, or any other nature-gone-wild event; such things are the result of natural forces. This is God, according to my theology:

You do not send us devastating winds and floods, or make the earth to shake; but you do stand with those who know fear in the face of the storm, and those who must rebuild after devastation. You stand with the victims of this earth, whatever calamity they experience, and you send the faithful into a shattered world to extend your love, grace, mercy, and life-saving acts to all in need. God reaches into the lives of all who suffer and tells them in myriads of ways that they are not alone. (Excerpted from the Affirmation of Faith in the Covenant Presbyterian Church liturgy one week after Irma struck)

May we all have the good sense to let science be science and theology be theology and never conflate the two, and may we resolve to give more than lip service to scientific fact. Belief that does not lead to action is not belief.

The most basic lesson of disaster is that humans need to return to living in community. We have to care for those beyond our own four walls, acknowledge that the least among us are our neighbors too, and know that we’re all on this ride together. If one of us fails, we’ve all failed.

Every hurricane results in a few new tweaks to the building codes, ensuring that the most affluent among us will be more protected during the next disaster; yet those codes and standards do not apply to the shacks inhabited by the least among us—which on their best days would barely survive a hard sneeze, much less a Cat 1 hurricane. A Cat 4 or 5 would level entire communities. We know that, but what are we doing with the knowledge?

I recall hearing my grandparents talk about barn raisings and quilting bees. Neighbors gathered to help neighbors, because their generation focused on the safety of the entire community, not just that of their own families. When did our focus shift? When did our hubris lead us to believe our own lives and the lives of our immediate family members are all that matter?

An essay in an old textbook from which I taught years ago suggests the shift occurred in the 1950s, with the architectural change from front porches to backyard patios. The hubristic belief that we are self-sufficient and no longer need to rely on our neighbors caused a cocooning trend. Front porches welcomed friendly interaction among neighbors and strengthened the sense of community. Rear-facing patios sent the message: “Leave me alone. I’m not available.” That theory may or may not be accurate, but no intelligent person can deny we have become an individualistic culture, with a weak sense of responsibility for each other and, most tragically, for the least among us.

I’ve learned much this week about community. In Irma’s wake, my neighbors and I shared resources since we all spent four days without electrical power; some neighborhoods are still without power one week since the storm passed. Here in my little corner, one neighbor had a generator, so she charged my phone each morning. I have a gas stove—a rarity in Southwest Florida—and a French press, so I made coffee for her. The neighbors who evacuated to another state asked us to check their freezer and use whatever was still good but wouldn’t last until their return. On the first day, I made pot roast from the last three chuck roasts in my own freezer, since I was the only one with a functioning stove. Then each day I cooked the food from my neighbors’ freezer that was ready to be used and shared it in meal-size portions since we didn’t have the means to preserve leftovers.

Power restoration is a gradual process, one grid at a time; so as soon as a friend’s power was restored, he/she sent out messages or posted on social media welcoming those still without power to come over, cool off, use wifi, take a hot shower, wash a few clothes, or sleep in an air-conditioned guest room. Even as I planned to go to a friend’s house to spend a cool night, a plan which was changed by the welcome restoration of my own house’s electricity, I had to wonder about my human brothers and sisters who on their best days are not surrounded by the loving community that sustained my friends and me through a stressful ordeal. When the time came for my neighbors to empty their fridges of food about to go bad, we looked at each other, knowing the potentially stinky stuff we removed from our houses was sure to get really stinky in hot outdoor trash cans. But we agreed, “Oh, well, we’re all in the same boat. We’ll stink together!”

I wondered every day how different my life would be if my post-Irma circumstances were my normal state of existence and if, instead of being in the boat with everyone else, I was treading water beside the boat with few people offering to help rescue me. What must it be like to live every day in crisis mode while others have plenty? How would it feel to smell the aroma of food cooking all around me while I had little or nothing to feed my own family? What resentment would well up inside my soul if those enjoying their lives of plenty judged me lazy, completely at fault for my own poverty, and undeserving of their care and compassion?

Less than 40 miles to the east of my usually comfortable house live some of the hardest-working people I’ve ever met. Laziness is a luxury unknown to them. They labor hours every day for a pittance and live in dwellings which on their best days don’t compare to my house in its post-Irma state—not even close. In our hubris, we modern humans have built a social structure that ignores these fellow humans—our “other” neighbors—while still greedily accepting the tomatoes and other winter crops with which they keep us all supplied. We share resources with those in our own comfortable neighborhoods, but we selfishly fail to acknowledge that those Immokalee field workers are our neighbors, too. Shame on us! We can be better than this.

It has always been a mystery to me how men can feel themselves honoured by the humiliation of their fellow beings.- Mahatma Gandhi

Above all, humans MUST acknowledge that our reckless lifestyle has dire consequences. We have to relearn the wisdom of our ancestors to live in harmony with, not defiance of, Nature. I can tell you, as a member of Irma’s audience in one of the pricey seats, Nature WILL win. Every time. Our only power against Nature’s forces lies in respecting and cooperating with it.

Often during my younger years, I heard the expression “going to bed with the chickens,” which I’m told was based on creatures’ instinctive sense of harmony with nature. When the natural lights go out, they sleep; when the lights come back on, they wake and begin their daily activities. Only humans have defied nature with our artificial lights and internal climate control that allow us to live in disregard for Earth’s natural cycle. How often we forget that our safe, comfy abodes are only one natural disaster removed from those of our most primitive ancestors! Our survival depends on sharpening our own natural instincts and reducing our dependence on Earth’s non-sustainable resources.

During the almost four days I spent without electricity after Irma passed, my cell phone was my only connection to the outside world. It was charged once a day by my neighbor who had a generator, so I kept it turned off except for a few minutes at a time when I checked for messages, to make the charge last until the next morning. My son did the same; and we shared a cyber chuckle in one text message exchange that we were turning into Grandpa—my stepfather whose cell phone is always turned off except on the rare occasions when he decides to make a call on it. Fortunately, he still has a landline, but it’s a longstanding family joke that there’s no need trying to call Grandpa on his cell phone because it won’t be on. No amount of good-natured teasing or appeals to reason over the years has persuaded him to change his ways. The phone remains off.

He and my mother were children of the Great Depression; they never developed any illusions that Earth’s resources are unlimited. They knew from the time they could tie their own shoes, every pot has a bottom, and the contents are precious and not to be squandered. My generation retained that sense to an extent, thanks to our parents’ modeling. Yet many of us failed to teach it to our children, and in our old age, we’ll reap the consequences of that failure. The world will be led by our grandchildren and great grandchildren who believe environmental responsibility means placing their plastic water bottles into the recycle bin instead of the regular trash, and who will be two to three generations removed from the generation who knew better than to put water into plastic bottles in the first place.

As Irma’s fury was being unleased in Charlotte County, Florida, my family watched from our secure viewing space egrets flying about unhindered by the fierce wind. We saw three ducks land on my son’s pond, instinctively positioning themselves to face the wind, flying away only when the giant pine tree fell and startled them. My daughter-in-law’s cat didn’t manage to make it back to the house before the storm, so she found shelter in an old pickup truck and waited for my daughter-in-law to rescue her after calm had been restored. We humans have largely lost our survival instincts; those animals are smarter than we are.

I was told yesterday that the lot surrounding the mission where I volunteer in Immokalee was fairly quickly cleared of tree debris after the storm, because the poor migrant workers took the wood—not to make giant piles for overstressed city and county collectors to eventually clear away as we’ve done in my neighborhood—but to make cooking fires to feed their families while their power was out. Those people who lead such simple lives know a little something about survival that we sophisticated, “advanced” folks would do well to learn.

If we’re to survive, humans simply have to be smarter in electing those in whose hands our collective fate will be held. Anyone who doesn’t “believe in” science should be immediately disqualified. Those who don’t live in hurricane zones do live in earthquake, tornado, flood, and fire zones. All humans live on small islands of land surrounded by vast bodies of water, which together comprise almost three-fourths of our planet’s surface. Every human is at risk of experiencing Nature’s power and fury, so none of us can afford to ignore the warnings or elect foolish people to make laws and determine policies.

Belief means action. If you believe your house is on fire, you leave as quickly as possible. You’d be a fool to sit comfortably in your recliner saying, “Yep! My house is on fire.” Yet how many of us humans are sitting in our comfy houses saying, “Yep! I believe what those scientists are saying,” while making not the slightest adjustment to our lifestyles or our politics? Belief without action is not belief. And it’s not smart!

Signing off from Irmageddon! Stay safe, fellow humans, and let’s all promise to put our heads together after this to figure out how we can live smarter and more responsibly. Now IS the time to have the conversation about climate. There may not be another opportunity.

Categories
Politics Religion

Christless Christianity and Modern Politics

According to reliable statistics, 81% of white American evangelicals, in the year 2016, used their cherished voting right to help elect Donald Trump to the office of POTUS. I don’t have statistics to show how many of those who helped elect the boy president continue to support him, but it’s my personal observation that there’s little buyers’ remorse among the group and that they continue not only to support but to defend him and his execrable actions since assuming office on January 20, 2017. In the words of The Bard, evangelicals supporting and defending a person who in no way  embodies their professed beliefs is “like sweet bells jangled, out of tune and harsh” (Hamlet Act 3 Scene 1).

How did this happen? “Christians” who profess to believe in the Bible as a literal, inerrant, God-breathed guidebook for the human race elected a thrice-married, adultery-committing, foul-mouthed, uncharitable , lying, swindling, Putin-loving, crotch-grabbing, over-sized child who shows little evidence of having read their Bible and no evidence of making any attempt to live by its precepts.

It’s a fair assertion that without the votes of white evangelicals, Donald Trump would not be sitting in the Oval Office today, so it’s also fair to ask how on earth hundreds of thousands of people would abdicate every belief which they profess to hold dear to help elect someone who is the antithesis of those beliefs. When the alt-right and the Christian right are on the same page, it’s clear that something is rotten in the state of Christendom.

Documentation for much of my information on this subject is personal experience. I was raised in the evangelical tradition; so I have first-hand knowledge of the thinking, beliefs, and lifestyles of the group. It’s also important to note that although all evangelicals profess to be Christians, not all Christians are evangelicals. The evangelical, also known as fundamentalist, tradition exists within mainstream denominations—with heavy concentration in the various Baptist groups—but they are right of center within their denominational theologies.

Most of us would have little reason to care what this subset of Christianity is up to or why they think the way they do were it not for their increasing influence on politics; and since their political actions affect us all, we have good reason to spend a little time delving into how the evangelical mind works because that thinking has played a large role in creating the situation that currently threatens the stability and future of our nation. Their political clout began with the merger between evangelicalism and the Republican Party, which happened in the 1980s. During my youth, I was consistently told that Christians should stay out of politics; church was church, and government was government.

Two changes have occurred, however, over the last several decades. First, there is little distinction in the evangelical mind between religious beliefs and political or philosophical positions. When evangelicals take a position on any subject, it becomes a part of their theology. Take climate change as a prime example. Evangelicals I know scoff at the scientific evidence proving climate change is real and is being caused by human activity as if those who do believe the findings of science are infidels. Second, their beliefs have become more and more detached from the Bible, which they claim as their infallible guide. The result is a systematic theology which is based on cherry-picked parts of the Bible but which stands in direct contradiction to the book’s broad themes and consistent principles.

To win the vote of an evangelical Republican, one need only state opposition to two things: abortion and homosexuality. Both are, in their view, anti-biblical (though they’re rarely mentioned in the Scriptures and never in the way they are cited) and are core issues which allow no room for negotiation. Crotch grabbing and Russia colluding are not related to those two core issues; therefore, crotch grabbing and Russia colluding become tangential subjects, dismissed as annoying obstacles to pursuing their goals of revoking Roe v. Wade and marriage equality. Never mind that the Bible, in its wholeness, says far more related to sexual assault than to abortion or homosexuality, because I daresay most of these avowed adherents to “the whole Word of God” have never read far beyond the cherry pickings which are used as the underpinnings of their beliefs.

A third subject necessary to an understanding of the Christians who elect, support, and defend a morally degenerate “president” is something called the “Rapture,” which they confuse with the second coming of Christ. Theories on how the world will end have abounded ever since the world began. Evangelicals believe that the end of time will be initiated by an appearance of Jesus Christ in the clouds. Jesus will take all of the people who believe the way they believe out of the world, bodily, and whisk them off to heaven in order to spare them from the devastation and destruction about to be wreaked upon the earth. Once the Christians are safely out of the way, the antichrist will take over and things will get really grim for 7 years. At the end of that time, Jesus will establish a long period of peace on the earth. There’s lots more to it, but that’s the short course.

The reward for believing as they do and for accepting the ridicule of those who don’t believe as they do is that they will in the end be vindicated. Jesus will come down and stick it to all of those critics, and the whole of humanity will have to admit that the evangelicals were right all along. They will also be the chosen few who will get to spend eternity in heaven, while doubters will burn (literally) in hell: a great pit filled with “fire and brimstone.”

This belief is supported by the usual string of cherries picked from various parts of the Bible, but the exclusivity of it gives the “true believers” privileged status. They are “in this world but not of this world.” Their other-worldly view allows them to detach themselves from such concerns as whether mentally ill people buy guns or the “president” likes to sexually assault women or a foreign adversary interfered in our presidential election on behalf of the guy who won. All that is important in their view is how these things fit into the “prophecies” of the Book of Revelation, which is probably the most misinterpreted book in all of the 66 of the Bible.

Any world event, however negative to those who live in the real world, is seen through the evangelical glasses only in terms of what it contributes to the fulfillment of those so-called prophecies. So it is possible to see Donald Trump as having been appointed by God, because God is going to use Trump to advance God’s plan of bringing God’s kingdom to Earth. I have personally been told that I needn’t worry too much about concerns for the future, because Jesus is going to come back before those things happen anyway.

Jessica Rettig, in an article titled “The Religious Ties of the Republican Party,” interviews Daniel Williams who explains the history of the merger between religious conservatives and the Republican Party. According to Williams, who also wrote the book God’s Own Party: the Making of the Christian Right, conservative Christians first latched onto the GOP during the 1970s. Although some movement was seen during the Eisenhower years, the major momentum occurred during the Nixon and Reagan eras. Since “the evangelicals were looking for a party that would champion what they viewed as moral values and their interests in the Cold War and the Republican Party was also looking for potential voters,” it was so to speak a marriage made in heaven: win-win. Williams goes on to explain how both the Cold War and opposition to Islam strengthened the political power of Christian evangelicals. They saw the federal government as “acting in the interests of God by fighting against communism internationally and by rooting out communist subversives within the country.” He adds, “In many ways, the war on terror became the new Cold War for evangelicals.”

Jessica Rettig wrote her article in 2010. More recently, Sarah Posner published an article titled “Amazing Disgrace” on March 20, 2017. Posner begins by posing the question “How did Donald Trump—a thrice-married, biblically illiterate sexual predator—hijack the religious right?” Well, that’s just what we’ve been wondering! Rettig says that Russell Moore, “a prominent leader in the Southern Baptist Convention,” began noticing the evangelical trend toward Trump even while many still dismissed Trump’s candidacy as a bad joke. Although Moore “had positioned himself as the face of the ‘new’ religious right,” he of course understood the old religious right’s mindset. In his book Engaging the Culture without Losing the Gospel, Moore writes, “The church of Jesus Christ ought to be the last people to fall for hucksters and demagogues. But too often we do.”

Posner goes on to say,

“As Trump continued gaining ground in the polls, Moore began to realize that the campaign represented nothing short of a battle for the soul of the Christian right. By backing Trump, white evangelicals were playing into the hands of a new, alt-right version of Christianity—a sprawling coalition of white nationalists, old-school Confederates, neo-Nazis, Islamophobes, and social-media propagandists who viewed the religious right, first and foremost, as a vehicle for white supremacy.”

In Posner’s own words, “The religious right—which for decades has grounded its political appeal in moral ‘values’ such as ‘life’ and ‘family’ and ‘religious freedom’—has effectively become a subsidiary of the alt-right, yoked to Trump’s white nationalist agenda.” Once again, we’re looking at the disconnect between the avowed adherence to the Bible as the “infallible, inerrant, inspired Word of God” and the failure to understand and practice even the most basic precepts of that book. The alt-right represents human nature at its most degraded, yet these “Christians” have philosophically joined hands with that movement. In the world of oxymorons, nothing is more extremely ironic than “alt-right Christians.” Yet they’re real and they walk among us.

Opposition to Roe v. Wade has for a generation been recognized as what Albert Mohler calls “the catalyst for the moral revolution within evangelicalism.” Sarah Posner argues, however, that abortion was not the issue responsible for the creation of the religious right; instead, according to Posner, it was the IRS’s revoking of the tax-exempt status for Bob Jones University and other institutions that refused to admit non-whites, which happened in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Posner says, “It was the government’s actions against segregated schools, not the legalization of abortion, that ‘enraged the Christian community,’ Moral Majority co-founder Paul Weyrich has acknowledged.”

Frank Schaeffer Jr., in his 2007 book Crazy for God, agrees that abortion was not immediately a concern for evangelicals; it was only after certain influential leaders “stirred them up over the issue” that evangelicals became politicized. Schaeffer argues that evangelicals have been “played for suckers” by high-profile leaders who have little genuine spirituality and much desire for power.

Sarah Posner writes this stunning statement: “That’s why white evangelicals were the key to Trump’s victory—they provided the numbers that the alt-right lacks. The alt-right supplied Trump with his agenda; the Christian right supplied him with his votes.”

If Sarah Posner and others are correct, the driving force behind the Christian right’s theology and politics is not really abortion or homosexuality—as they say—but deep-rooted racism and white supremacy. Here are a few facts:

“According to an exit poll of Republican voters in the South Carolina primary, evangelicals were much more likely to support banning Muslims from the United States, creating a database of Muslim citizens, and flying the Confederate flag at the state capitol. Thirty-eight percent of evangelicals told pollsters that they wished the South had won the Civil War—more than twice the number of nonevangelicals who held that view.”

Matthew MacWilliams is the author of articles in which he reports the results of his own research into traits which predict support of Donald Trump. He found the usual factors of race, income, and education levels; but those were insignificant compared to the “single statistically significant variable . . . authoritarianism.”

Although authoritarians can be found in all political parties, geographic areas, occupations, and religions, authoritarianism is at the very core of the evangelical religious philosophy; and it helps to explain the disconnect between their avowed adherence to the Bible and the reality of their anti-biblical attitudes and practices. For example, their concern for life is belied by resistance to reasonable gun control and unconcern for the poor—the people Jesus called “the least of these” and said that those who serve them are serving him.

In truth, many evangelicals follow strong leaders more than they directly follow the teachings of Scripture. To name a few of those leaders, James Dobson, Jerry Falwell Sr. and Jr., Rick Warren, Franklin Graham, Bill Hybels, Joyce Meyer, Tim and Beverly LaHaye, and Beth Moore are far more likely to influence the beliefs and practices of evangelicals than is their own personal reading and interpretation of the Bible. In fact, their interpretation of the Bible has most likely been informed by one or more of those people and others who could be listed. And no evangelical with a normal human need to be accepted within one’s tribe would dare contradict the teachings and interpretations of their esteemed leaders.

If authoritarianism is indeed the main common denominator among Trump supporters, it is no longer a surprise to see evangelicals on that list. And there is no way to reason with this group, because in their minds all of their information comes directly from God, they are privy to things the rest of us who don’t enjoy VIP status are not, their leaders hold god-like authority, and then there’s the whole thing about Jesus coming back to wipe out everyone except them and show the rest of us that we’re the ones who’ve been wrong the whole time.

To repeat, all evangelicals profess to be Christians, but not all Christians are evangelicals, and it is unfair to judge the whole lot of us by the actions of that one group. Micah 6:8 sums up Christianity for me:

“He has told you, O mortal, what is good;
and what does the Lord require of you
but to do justice, and to love kindness,
and to walk humbly with your God?”

I still have some work to do; but I’m going to keep striving for justice, kindness, and a humble walk with God and let the fundies (fundamentalists) have their rules and condemnation.

As for what all of this means to the political future of our country, the mergers between evangelicalism and the Republican Party and between evangelicalism and the alt-right mean that this group of “Christians” will continue to wield political influence for the foreseeable future. I wish I could offer a solution, but that’s above my level of influence. All I can say is that understanding a problem is key to addressing it, so I hope this article sheds a little light that may help us as we go forward.

 

PLEASE NOTE: My purpose in writing this article was not to decide the genuineness of anyone’s Christianity; faith is a private matter, so other people’s faith or lack thereof doesn’t affect me and is therefore none of my business. It’s not my job to pass judgment on others, even though some others have passed the judgment that I am not a “real” Christian. My only purpose was to examine the political influence of a large group of my fellow citizens, because their influence on governmental affairs does affect me and IS my business. The truth is that without this group, we would not have the “president” we now have. That means they’ve affected all of our lives, whether we’re mainstream Christians, fundamentalists, or atheists. And that’s a scary reality.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Categories
Politics Religion

If That’s Your Idea of Christianity, Count Me Out!

Image result for god, guns and glory graphic

Still befuddled by the disconnect between evangelicals’ avowed religious beliefs and their support of Donald Trump’s candidacy, opposition to reasonable measures for reducing gun violence, vitriolic hatred for our black president, and general opposition to any laws which might make life easier for people who look or think differently than they do, I have to ask myself “Who is this Jesus whom these people claim to follow?”

For the last several decades, the Republican Party has been known as the “Christian party”; but in 2016, the party has been tasked with trying to defend a candidate whose words, actions, and life history do not in any way represent what most of us have been taught are Christian values. Numerous writers have contributed to the mental gymnastics show, stretching and manipulating their scriptures to make a vote for Donald Trump seem the moral, godly thing to do.

In addition to the “conservative” writers who present their “Christian” messages supporting all manner of non-Christian ideas, some of my social media friends are fond of posting YouTube videos by a young woman named Tomi Lahren, an anchor for One America News Network (OAN). Her videos show the closing act of her “news” show, called “Final Thoughts.” These closing rants of hers are presented in an angry, accusing tone, with no facial expression, and with lots of finger pointing. In a particularly appalling rant, she “takes down” President Obama, whom she addresses as Barry, for his speech at this year’s DNC. She concludes her thoughts with the statement, “Keep your paws off our guns, our God, and our glory.” Now there’s a righteous combination for you: guns, God, and glory!

Ms. Lahren and other “conservative” Republicans are the most vocal opponents of even discussing the problem of gun violence and mass murders because their sketchy understanding of the Second Amendment—actually the second half of the Second Amendment—trumps the importance of saving lives. Yet ironically, those same people claim to follow a pacifist who willingly submitted himself to death by execution; who, according to the New Testament narratives, was often “moved with compassion” when he met people in need; and who spent his entire years of public ministry saving lives—not condoning their destruction.

And how often do you see the most vocal members of the “Christian party” moved with compassion on people who are down on their luck or who are desperately seeking refuge from war and oppression? There’s plenty of passion for saving unborn babies—and I support that discussion—but how about the people who are already here? How about the people whose families would be ripped apart by deportation or who would die on the other side of that great big wall?

I’ve been so baffled by these questions that I decided to review the first four books of the New Testament, also known as the Gospels, which contain the narratives of Jesus’ life. I focused on the first three—Matthew, Mark, and Luke—since these are known as the Synoptic Gospels because they are based on common sources and recount most of the same stories, often in similar sequence and wording. The writers’ point of view contrasts with that of John, who wrote the fourth book.

Quick disclaimer: I am not a theologian, and my comments should not be read as the definitive exposition of the first three books of the New Testament. I am just someone who thinks a lot and who tries to understand things that don’t make sense to me. It’s a curse. But moving right along.

It’s really no surprise that politics and religion so often overlap and even collide; both are part of our individual world views. In our human efforts to make sense of the world around us, we come to various conclusions about the existence or non-existence of a higher power and what our relationship to that higher power should be, if we decide there is one; the proper way to relate to and live in peace with the other more than seven billion humans with whom we share this small planet; and conflicting allegiance to human government and to God’s law. These are heady topics, and some people invest a great deal of time and energy into finding the answers to their questions.

A few years back, it became popular to ask the question “What would Jesus do?”when seeking answers to questions of morality and ethics. More to the point, I think, is “What did Jesus do?” This is the question that led me to review the narratives of Jesus’ life, and here’s what I discovered (again, from strictly a lay person’s point of view). Jesus’ public ministry lasted about three-and-a-half years; and during that time, he spent most of his time healing, teaching, and practicing civil disobedience.

He also invested himself in relationships, not just with people who liked him or agreed with him; he was frequently criticized for dining with “sinners.” On one such occasion, some Pharisees asked the disciples,

“What kind of example is this from your Teacher, acting cozy with crooks and riffraff?”

Jesus, overhearing, shot back, “Who needs a doctor: the healthy or the sick? Go figure out what this Scripture means: ‘I’m after mercy, not religion.’ I’m here to invite outsiders, not coddle insiders.” (Mt. 9: 11-13, The Message)

Everywhere Jesus went, large crowds followed him, many of them desperate for healing, either for themselves or for loved ones. Jesus healed without vetting, without expectation of payment. He never condoned the actions of those who didn’t take the moral high road, but neither did he make their morality a condition of his helping them. He seemed to understand that hungry and sick people would have a harder time listening to and responding to his teachings, so he healed and fed first and then preached.

Although I’m not a country music fan, I recall a Johnny Cash song from many years ago that expressed his response to those who want to teach first as a condition for meeting physical needs:

At the end of our street
Is a mission so sweet
Where me and all my friends
Get a little something to eat

Though you can’t pick and choose
You sure like their stew
And if you don’t get fried chicken
What you get you can use

Praise the Lord and pass the soup
Praise the Lord and pass the bread

Sister, you can bang on your tambourine
Just let my body be fed.

The greatest example of Jesus’ teaching is recorded in what is commonly known as the Sermon on the Mount, which includes a list that we often call the Beatitudes. I’ve discussed those in another article, so I won’t elaborate here, but I think those whom he calls “blessed” may not be the same as some might have expected. Also, in that sermon, Jesus addressed the question of the Old Testament law and whether it must still be observed.

His answer was that he came not to abolish the law but to teach a different understanding of it, an understanding which encompassed not only strict adherence to rules but also attitudes of goodness: it’s no longer enough to refrain from murdering; anger, hatred, and verbal insults are also assaults. It’s no longer enough to refrain from physically committing adultery; men must also cease to look at women only as sex objects and must honor their marriage vows in spirit as well as action. His followers were given a higher calling than merely keeping rules.

Jesus also taught, in Matthew 7 and in Luke 6, that it is not our place to judge others.

Do not judge, so that you may not be judged. For with the judgment you make you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get. Why do you see the speck in your neighbor’s eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye? Or how can you say to your neighbor, “Let me take the speck out of your eye, while the log is in your own eye?” You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbor’s eye. (Mt. 7: 1-5)

Possibly Jesus’ most comprehensive statement on what his followers should do is presented in his answer to some of the religiously orthodox people of his day who asked him which of the law’s commandments is the most important. He responded:

You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

In other words, if you love God and love each other, you’ve fulfilled the law. These two commandments summarize all of the laws and commands in the scripture. I think some people have missed this passage, because I’ve met an awfully lot of people who are still worried about a lot of other rules on which they base their treatment of those who don’t share their views.

Another well-known teaching is found in Matthew 25: 31-40. Jesus created an end-of-time scenario when all people would be called to account for their deeds, and he listed six criteria for being judged righteous by God: feeding Jesus when he was hungry, giving him something to drink when he was thirsty, welcoming him when he was a stranger, giving him clothing when he was naked, caring for him when he was sick, and visiting him when he was in prison. Confused, the disciples wondered what on earth Jesus was talking about. “We never did any of those things for you!” Jesus’ answer is a frequently quoted line: “Just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me.”

Wow! That’s pretty simple, but I wonder why he didn’t say anything about excluding people who don’t live the same way we do or who don’t look like us. Wait a minute! Did he just say everyone is a member of his family? Maybe we’re supposed to treat everyone the same? Nah!

In addition to his healing and teaching, Jesus had to deal with the religious and government leaders of his day; and these are the only people for whom I find he had harsh words: “hypocrites,” “brood of vipers,” “child of hell,” “blind guides,” among others. Along with the crowds who followed him around seeking what he offered, the Pharisees and the Sadducees also followed Jesus and began early on to conspire against him and to entrap him. As early as Matthew chapter 11, we’re told, “The Pharisees went out and conspired against him, how to destroy him.”

The Pharisees represented the religious orthodoxy of the time and considered themselves superior in virtue and piety because of their strict observance of the written law. The Sadducees were wealthy aristocrats who occupied the highest religious offices and also held a majority of the seats on the ruling council called the Sanhedrin; so they were politically powerful as well being religious leaders. Since Israel was under Roman domination at that time, the Sadducees attempted to keep peace by agreeing and cooperating with the Roman authorities.

Everyone knows how things ended for Jesus, but I’d like to look for a moment at how he responded to the conflict in the years before his eventual execution. As I read it, he practiced civil disobedience. In Jesus’ teaching, he focused on the concept of two different realms and two different kingdoms: the kingdom of God and the kingdoms of human governments. He acknowledged the possibility of divided loyalties and taught that in cases of conflict, those who follow him owe primary allegiance to God.

Like more contemporary examples—Martin Luther King Jr., Mahatma Gandhi, Henry David Thoreau and others—he lived according to the law of his conscience, even when that law was in conflict with the dictates of the government. Yet, like these others, his resistance was always non-violent. He usually simply left the place of conflict and sought another location to continue his work. He spoke the truth boldly to those who oppressed him, but he sought to stay on message rather than initiating conflict or retaliating against the wrongs done to him.

As President Obama likes to say, let me be clear: Donald Trump in no way exemplifies anything I have found in the narratives of Jesus’ life. None. There is NO resemblance. His words and his actions could not possibly be more diametrically opposed to the narratives of Jesus’ life and teachings. And no amount of theological gymnastics will make him what he is not: a representative of Christian principle. So the Republicans who feel they must choose the Christian candidate would more logically choose Hillary Clinton than Donald Trump; she has spent her entire adult life handing out “cups of cold water” to people in need. Donald Trump has lived his entire life seeking power and wealth for himself only; and so be it, but you can’t sell that as Christian virtue. That pig just won’t fly!

And for that matter, what about the other Republicans making news these days? Disrespecting our black president, scoffing at systemic racism, casually dismissing gun violence as being less important than their “right to carry,” disregard for the downtrodden and desperate, demonizing and vilifying their fellow humans who live or think differently than they do—the list could go on and on. Are those followers of Jesus and their “Christian party” representatives in Washington really doing what Jesus did, or are they doing the exact opposite? Does anything in Jesus’ life say “God, guns, and glory”?

Love God and love people. That’s it. Loving doesn’t mean always agreeing with or approving, but it means respecting and treating with kindness—not excluding or vilifying and not making laws which deprive others of their right to pursue happiness.

Which party better represents Christian values? Well, neither of them completely; but I’ll say those who call themselves the “Christian party” should examine their definition of Christianity. And if some of their examples are what it means to be a Christian, stop the bus and let me off!

 

Categories
Politics Religion

“Christian Democrat” Is Not an Oxymoron!

03xTr1471405864

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.

 

 

 

Categories
Politics Religion

Evangelicals for Trump. Seriously???

Evangelicals find themselves facing a yuuuge moral dilemma this November. They can’t stomach the thought of voting for a Democrat, especially that woman. Yet their default candidate sends shivers up their spines every time he opens his mouth. Some are exploring third-party or write-in candidates, but others recognize the pitfalls of voting outside the two major parties, since so far no third-party candidate has ever won an election and there’s no way to be certain which major-party candidate will be more affected by third-party votes. What’s a god-fearing, self-respecting evangelical to do? For a number of them, the answer seems to be “rationalize.” Vote for someone who in every way violates your confession of faith, but construct arguments to make the wrong you’re about to do feel right.

Let’s face it: every honest person will have to admit to doing something in their life that has violated their own personal moral code. I admit I have. Sometimes the deed is the result of too much temptation and too little will power. Sometimes it’s a gross error in judgment. And sometimes we feel that we’re forced to choose the lesser of two evils, in which case we’re likely to be left feeling guilty no matter what we do because the lesser of two evils is still evil. Whatever the reason for our lapse, the resulting spiritual turmoil is painful.

So how does one make peace with one’s own conscience after having done something which has grossly offended the conscience? I would argue that the only honest way to proceed is to simply own the deed: admit it, accept your human weakness, seek forgiveness from anyone who has been hurt by your action, confess and seek forgiveness from God if that is part of your belief system, and then most important of all, forgive yourself. Then go on and live your life, believing you are still a good person, not damaged goods, who is still entitled to respect and is able to make sound moral judgments in the future.

I would also argue that the most dishonest and damaging way to make peace with a troubled conscience is to construct an argument that changes wrong to right. That approach leads one deeper into self-delusion and further from any connection to or understanding of truth. People who lie to themselves no longer see the dividing line between truth and falsehood. In Shakespeare’s play “Hamlet,” Polonius gives a long list of advice to his son Laertes, ending with the most important: “This above all: to thine own self be true,/And it must follow, as the night the day,/Thou canst not then be false to any man.” If Polonius is right, one who is honest with oneself can’t be dishonest with anyone else, isn’t it fair to say the opposite is also correct: One who is dishonest with oneself can’t possibly be honest with anyone else.

Evangelicals* (See note at end) have been doing battle with their consciences for over a year now, and that battle intensifies with every day we move closer to November 8. Some, as I mentioned before, are looking at third-party and write-in candidates; others are going to sit out this election (cowards); others are just going to swallow hard and vote for Trump because he’s the only Republican on the ballot. Then there are the most disturbing of all: the ones who are going down that dark, twisted trail of attempting to construct an argument that will morally justify their choice and quiet their consciences.

I mentioned one of those in a previous post: Wayne Grudem, whose article “Why Voting for Donald Trump Is a Morally Good Choice” is being read, parsed, and widely refuted. Wayne Grudem is an influential evangelical theologian, professor of Christian ethics, author, and study Bible editor. Professor Grudem rationalizes:

He [Trump] is egotistical, bombastic, and brash. He often lacks nuance in his statements. Sometimes he blurts out mistaken ideas (such as bombing the families of terrorists) that he later must abandon. He insults people. He can be vindictive when people attack him. He has been slow to disown and rebuke the wrongful words and actions of some angry fringe supporters. He has been married three times and claims to have been unfaithful in his marriages. These are certainly flaws, but I don’t think they are disqualifying flaws in this election.

I’m still choking on “lacks nuance” and “I don’t think they are disqualifying flaws.” But moving on, in another passage he says,

But are you saying that character doesn’t matter?” someone might ask. I believe that character does matter, but I think Trump’s character is far better than what is portrayed by much current political mud-slinging, and far better than his opponent’s character.

In addition, if someone makes doubts about character the only factor to consider, that is a fallacy in ethical reasoning that I call “reductionism” – the mistake of reducing every argument to only one factor, when the situation requires that multiple factors be considered. In this election, an even larger factor is the future of the nation that would flow from a Clinton or a Trump presidency.

I agree with Professor Grudem that single-issue voting is narrow and disqualifies otherwise good candidates for a single disagreement. However, character is an overriding factor which encompasses who a person is, to what extent the person can be trusted, and the moral compass by which the person lives. That’s NOT the same as voting only on a candidate’s stance on immigration, guns, or abortion. There is NO way Professor Grudem can honestly reconcile his own description of Trump with his own belief system.

Here’s an Evangelical Statement of Faith, taken from the National Association of Evangelicals, http://nae.net/statement-of-faith/. Of course, individual groups will add to or alter the list in accordance with their personal interpretations, but I think this list is a pretty basic general summary.

We believe the Bible to be the inspired, the only infallible, authoritative Word of God.

We believe that there is one God, eternally existent in three persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

We believe in the deity of our Lord Jesus Christ, in His virgin birth, in His sinless life, in His miracles, in His vicarious and atoning death through His shed blood, in His bodily resurrection, in His ascension to the right hand of the Father, and in His personal return in power and glory.

We believe that for the salvation of lost and sinful people, regeneration by the Holy Spirit is absolutely essential.

We believe in the present ministry of the Holy Spirit by whose indwelling the Christian is enabled to live a godly life.

We believe in the resurrection of both the saved and the lost; they that are saved unto the resurrection of life and they that are lost unto the resurrection of damnation.

We believe in the spiritual unity of believers in our Lord Jesus Christ.

I have no way of knowing what Donald Trump believes concerning the first three items on the list; of course I could comment, but I’ll resist. I’m most drawn to the fourth and fifth. Can anyone honestly argue that someone who attacks and vilifies women, immigrants, people with disabilities, people who were captured in war, Gold Star families, an opponent’s wife, an opponent’s father; who boots a mother with a crying baby from a rally; who has described his own daughter as “hot” and said he’d date her if she were not his daughter; who is being sued for child rape; who condones and incites violence; who proposes banning entire people groups from our country—that this person exudes the spirit of one who has been regenerated by the Holy Spirit or who is indwelt by the Holy Spirit or who is living a godly life? That’s too big a stretch for my imagination!

And how about the last item on the list: “the spiritual unity of believers in our Lord Jesus Christ.” Has Professor Grudem’s “flawed candidate” done a single thing to promote unity since he launched his campaign? Or has everything he has done promoted division and discord? Of course, Mr. Grudem would argue that Hillary Clinton is even more flawed in regard to Evangelical standards, but the title of his article is not “Why Voting for Donald Trump Is Better than Voting for Hillary Clinton.” It’s “Why Voting for Donald Trump Is a Morally Good Choice,” and I think that statement cannot be argued without compromising one’s evangelical beliefs.

http://townhall.com/columnists/waynegrudem/2016/07/28/why-voting-for-donald-trump-is-a-morally-good-choice-n2199564

Then as I was still reeling from Professor Grudem’s article, I came across another article this morning, this one written by an unnamed author, “To the ‘Never Trumper’—A Biblical Case for Trump.” The author introduces herself thus:

I fit the classic profile of a “Never Trumper.” I am a highly educated, staunchly theologically and politically conservative pastor’s wife, who plans to one day homeschool her children. I even want to be a “Never Trumper.” I really do. It sounds so principled, so brave, to be a political nonconformist who refuses to buckle under the weight of societal temptation, or fall under the spell of the big mouthed billionaire with his lofty promises for a better future. I CANNOT, however, allow myself [to] ignore the principles laid out in the Word of God for situations such as the political debacle Americans have unfortunately found themselves in.

Her tone throughout the article is confrontational, her logic is confusing at best, and the accusations she freely hurls at Mrs. Clinton are unsupported. As the title suggests, her target audience is voters in the “Never Trump” movement, which means she’s speaking to Republicans who don’t like Donald Trump. Unlike Wayne Grudem (whose article she references at the end of her own), this writer does not deny any of the negative charges against Trump; in fact, the above quotation suggests that she agrees with those charges, as does this one:

I would first ask you to remember that we are NOT electing Trump to a sacred or ecclesiastical office. We are electing him to a political office. If this was a question of placing Trump in charge of my church or Christian organization, you would have to hogtie and hold me down in order to get me to vote for him. I am not arguing for Trump’s morality here.

I am simply stating that in this specific office, as President, he has gone to great lengths to demonstrate that he will protect and champion the rights of the American evangelical if he were to be elected, even if he does not personally embrace those values. . . . He has even organized a “faith advisory committee” comprised of some of the most respected Christian leaders in America.

Note that she has omitted how Mr. Trump will “protect and champion the rights of the American evangelical.” Could it be because he has never told us how he intends to carry out any of his “plans”?

Going on to address the “lesser of two evils” that we’ve heard so much about, she says:

The difference is that one “evil” has promised to do his best to protect your right to worship freely, and one has promised to do everything within her power to suppress them. You may argue that Trump will turn tail and act against Christians once elected. You are absolutely right. He could. We can be CERTAIN, however, that Hillary will do her best to destroy what little sense of decency we have left.

Am I the only one who missed the parts of Mrs. Clinton’s campaign speeches where she says she plans to suppress our right to worship freely and to destroy our sense of decency? And I’m curious what “them” is in line 3, that says Mrs. Clinton has promised to “suppress them.”

There’s more:

Never Trumper…get over yourself. This isn’t about your personal likes or dislikes. This is about the future of your children. If you aren’t willing to overcome your personal chagrin that an outsider could come in and do your job for you, then you have no one to blame but yourself when Mrs. Hillary Rodham Clinton is elected.

Following that statement is a list of things which Never Trumpers will have lost the right to complain about if Mrs. Clinton is elected: the right to act as a martyr when she comes after your right to speak freely about issues such as homosexuality and the exclusivity of the Gospel; third-trimester abortions; future liberal supreme court rulings; your pastor being imprisoned for hate speech crimes; losing your right to bear arms and having to fret about the safety of your family.

I admit I am disturbed by third-trimester abortions, but I guess I fell asleep during the time Mrs. Clinton was talking about destroying our sense of decency, imprisoning our pastors, and taking away everyone’s guns.

And finally, here’s the wrap-up:

I am not arguing that Trump is a great man.

I am not even arguing that Trump is a good man.

I am arguing that in the words of Christ Himself, God can use an individual that is “not one of us” to further His purposes and protect His people.

I am arguing that in this time, and in this particular circumstance as the only nominee for Republican Party, Trump is the RIGHT man to serve as President of the United States.

So it seems this author is admitting that Donald Trump is all of the awful things we know he is but believes Jesus can use him anyhow to protect and defend us. I’d like to know a little more about how anyone can know that Jesus is behind a political candidate, but I guess I’ll have to wait for her sequel.

Her “argument” is, of course, sprinkled liberally with cherry-picked Bible verses because no self-respecting evangelical would dare debate those. If you want to “prove” something, just pick a verse–any verse.

https://lastchanceamerica.wordpress.com/2016/07/27/to-the-never-trumper-a-biblical-case-for-trump/

So far, the only “moral” arguments that have been advanced in favor of electing Donald Trump as president are based solely on the facts that he’s not Hillary Clinton and he’s not a Democrat. I saw a comment on social media this week calling the Democratic Party the “Party of Satan.” And most evangelicals I know, even if they don’t use such strong language, seem to agree with that statement at least in sentiment. It goes without saying that the standard bearer of the Party of Satan must then be Satan herself, which also seems to be a widely shared sentiment among evangelicals. That neither of those judgments can be substantively supported has not deterred any of those who continue to piously proclaim them.

Okay, I get it. You will never vote for a Democrat, especially not that Democrat. If the Republican Party nominates a hamster, you will swallow hard and vote for the hamster because it’s a Republican. Whatever! But can we at least be honest? Do whatever you have to do to be at peace with your conscience. Vote for the person who in no way represents your moral code if you feel you must. But puh-leeze spare the rest of us the ridiculous mental gymnastics of trying to convince yourself that what you’re doing is in harmony with your stated beliefs. It’s not.

 

*Note: I belong to the Christian faith, but I am not an evangelical. I am a mainstream Protestant.

 

 

 

Categories
Religion

It’s All about the Heart

For some reason, the most vocal Christians among us never mention the Beatitudes (Matthew 5). But, often with tears in their eyes, they demand that the Ten Commandments be posted in public buildings. And of course, that’s Moses, not Jesus. I haven’t heard one of them demand that the Sermon on the Mount, the Beatitudes, be posted anywhere.
“Blessed are the merciful” in a courtroom? “Blessed are the peacemakers” in the Pentagon? Give me a break!”

― Kurt Vonnegut, A Man Without a Country

Many, if not most, of the Christian teachings I’ve heard during my lifetime have focused on what we should do and what we should not do and not much on what we should be. In fact, in my youth, all the emphasis seemed to be on the “don’ts.” I’ve given a lot of thought lately to Jesus’ example and what it teaches us about the things that really count. And where better to look for Jesus’ attitudes than the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5-7?

Eight simple statements, which have come to be known as the Beatitudes, tell us the character traits which are truly valued but which often seem to be absent in those who are “most vocal” about their Christian faith.

“Blessed are the poor in spirit.”

“Blessed are those who mourn.”

“Blessed are the meek.”

“Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness.”

“Blessed are the merciful.”

“Blessed are the pure in heart.”

“Blessed are the peacemakers.”

“Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake.”

These eight simple statements say far more about what we should be than about what we should do or not do.

What does it mean to be “poor in spirit”? I think it’s the opposite of pride and arrogance. It’s humility that values all lives as equal with one’s own. One who is “poor in spirit,” i.e., humble, is not racist, does not see oneself as superior to people who are different. It means truly believing down deep that “all lives matter” and not saying those words just to change the subject or avoid looking at one’s own racist, supremacist attitudes. And not just racism. Valuing any majority group—heterosexuals, cisgender people, mentally typical people, physically typical people—above their minority opposites is arrogance of spirit and not evidence of a Christian attitude. Yet who seems to yell the loudest about God’s will when any of these subjects come up for discussion? I don’t have to tell you the answer to that.

What is it about “those who mourn” that earns them special commendation? Perhaps this speaks of having compassionate hearts, grieving over injustice and tragedy and weeping for those who suffer instead of blaming and shaming them. Instead of posting vile, judgmental memes on social media, expressing sympathy and understanding. Instead of characterizing all poor and homeless people as lazy, worthless ne’er-do-wells, listening to their stories and giving “a cup of cold water” in the name of the one you claim to worship. Instead of adding to the stress and grief of parents whose children have been dangerously close to a gorilla or been killed by an alligator, showing a little human compassion for people doing the hardest job in the world and sometimes being overstressed and sometimes making bad judgments. We’ve all been there! And maybe it means defending the rape victim and mourning her distress instead of declaring that “she asked for it.” It means grieving equally for murdered police officers and for the victims of police brutality and racism. It means understanding the plight of the persecuted Palestinians and seeing both sides of a tragically long, unresolved conflict. We’re all human. Why can’t we feel each other’s pain and give other human beings the same love, understanding, and support that we want for ourselves when we’re hurting?

“The meek” I have seen defined as those who overcome evil with good. Recently, I read an article from The Charlotte Observer about a couple who entered a Pennsylvania restaurant and declined to be seated beside a table of four police officers. They didn’t bother being subtle about it, so the officers knew exactly why the couple was escorted to a table on the opposite side of the restaurant. But instead of anger and sarcasm, the officers decided to respond with kindness. They paid the couple’s bill of $28.50, plus a $10 tip (well above the standard 20%) and added this note: “Sir, your check was paid for by the police officers that you didn’t want to sit next to. Thank you for your support.”

The spokesperson for the group, Officer Thomas, made this statement: “Essentially the whole goal of it was to let him know that we’re not here to hurt you, we’re not here for that. We’re here for you. We work for the public. And we just want to better the relationship between the community and the police.” Individuals make a difference! As Martin Luther King said, “Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only love can do that.”

How does one “hunger and thirst for righteousness”? I think this refers to people who seek truth and never allow themselves to become complacent in the feeling that they know all there is to know. When you’re hungry, you don’t meditate on the last meal you ate and expect that to fill you up. You want real food right now. No matter how much you’ve studied and searched and thought you had things all figured out, no matter how different the world is today than it was when you were young, when new questions arise, you need new answers. The answers may be based on old principles, but they have to fit the current question. This is my new mantra for lots of social issues: “It is what it is.” I know that’s not original, and it’s not even very clever; but it means certain things exist, and they don’t need my approval. There’s what we think and there’s how we act. My job is not to judge the rightness or wrongness of other people’s way of life but to love my neighbor as myself. Are transgender people my neighbors? Yes. End of discussion. Footnote: These people still have to pee, so for God’s sake, don’t make it so difficult!

Also blessed are “the merciful.” Everyone wants mercy. No one wants judgment and condemnation. Abraham Lincoln is quoted as saying, “I have always found that mercy bears richer fruits than strict justice.” Human nature seems to seek justice for other people’s wrongs but to desire mercy for our own wrongs. When we insist on strict justice, we often overlook opportunities to reclaim a life. We say “all lives matter,” but we don’t act like we believe that when we apply rigid rules untempered by mercy. According to Gordon B. Hinckley (author of Standing for Something: 10 Neglected Virtues That Will Heal Our Hearts and Homes), “The willingness to forgive is a sign of spiritual and emotional maturity. It is one of the great virtues to which we all should aspire. Imagine a world filled with individuals willing both to apologize and to accept an apology. Is there any problem that could not be solved among people who possessed the humility and largeness of spirit and soul to do either — or both — when needed?” Indeed, let’s try to imagine a world in which politicians, leaders, and common people would sincerely apologize for their wrongdoing instead of denying and trying to cover it up or rationalize it. And then imagine a world in which all who hear that sincere apology would forgive and seek reconciliation and cooperation. I’d like to live in that world.

Blessed are “the pure in heart.” We can’t all be Mother Teresas or Mahatma Gandhis, but we can at least try to emulate their attitudes toward our fellow human beings. We can stop glorifying prosperity theology and “what’s in it for me?” theology. We can stop hating and judging. We can care more about loving and forgiving than about being “right.” We can take time to look beyond our preconceived beliefs and open our minds to new information and how old information applies to a new world. We can stop thinking of ourselves as superior to everyone who sees the world differently than we do. We can listen more and talk less. We can stop being arrogant jerks.

Blessed are “the peacemakers.” In my article “Guns vs Guts: Eight Images,” I mentioned several of my peacemaking heroes: those who have chosen to fight injustice without resorting to violence. Ieshia L. Evans (the woman in this summer’s iconic photo from Baton Rouge, Louisiana), Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King Jr., and Mahatma Gandhi all faced the forces of evil and injustice without firing a shot. Most of the gun advocates I know today identify themselves as Christians; they seem to think God himself wrote the second amendment, and they’re not even willing to have a reasonable conversation about it. The people from the Westboro Baptist organization (I refuse to call it a church) show up to spread their hate and vitriol at funerals where people’s hearts need healing, not further persecution. How much more could be accomplished by making peace instead of war?

And finally, “those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake” are recognized. Those willing to bear injustice without seeking revenge have a special spot on this list; there’s even a follow-up verse that further elaborates on what constitutes persecution: “when people revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account.” I’m just guessing here, but I think this might include whining on social media about how you’re being picked on. Of course it hurts to be slandered and ridiculed, but really, if that’s the worst that ever happens to any of us, we have nothing to whine about. Christians are having their heads chopped off by ISIS, and we’re whining because someone who doesn’t share our beliefs has said something mean.

Also, evangelicals like to complain that no one listens to them, but I’d say everybody is listening to them. Politicians jump through hoops to win their votes. James Dobson even publicly claimed recently that Donald Trump had been “saved” just because he knows that’s appealing to a large bloc of voters. I’d say that’s a lot of power. You’re being heard, so now start saying something worth listening to.

You may have noticed by now that I’m just a little annoyed by much of what’s going on these days under the guise of Christianity. I’d love to see more being and less doing. “Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, to visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world” (James 1:27). More of this and less shouting about what God hates or how our country is on a roller coaster ride to hell. Please. For the love of God.

 

 

 

Categories
Religion

Time to Come Out of the Bubble

Since my undergrad days in college, this has been one of my favorite quotations from John Milton:

“I cannot praise a fugitive and cloistered virtue, unexercised and unbreathed, that never sallies out and sees her adversary, but slinks out of the race where that immortal garland is to be run for, not without dust and heat.”

“Fugitive” means on the lam, living in seclusion, hiding. “Cloistered” means isolated, closed off from the outside world and ignoring its existence and its influence; monasteries and convents are cloisters. “Virtue,” of course, is the best human qualities—those deserving of our respect and praise. But Milton says he cannot praise or respect a fugitive, cloistered virtue: that which is exemplified by people who live in isolation, who listen only to those who agree with them, whose every moment of life is spent in a controlled environment. And why does he not praise that kind of goodness? Because it’s never met its adversary, never “sallies out” or leaves the bubble long enough to see firsthand who its opponents are. It’s “unexercised”; it’s never flexed its muscles against a real opponent—just shouted from its safe little hiding place, reinforced by those likeminded people who share the cloister.

Milton says such people “[slink] out of the race,” the arena where the prize has to be won. And he says “that immortal garland” is available, but it comes at a price. You can’t win it from the safety of the sidelines; it can be won only by enduring the “dust and heat.” You’re going to have to get dirty.

Remind you of anyone you know? In the last few decades, this quotation has come to mind often as I have witnessed a group of people who in my opinion exemplify this description perfectly and who as a result have lost much of their effectiveness: evangelical Christians. Let me hasten to say I am a Christian, so I look at this subject not as an outsider but as one who loves the Christian faith and feels the wounds it is inflicting upon itself. In the eyes of those outside our faith, we’re all the same, even though of course in reality there are wide and deep differences among self-identified followers of Jesus.

I recall a good Christian friend telling me her husband—an ordained minister—was hesitant to attend certain Bible studies because “there are too many Christians there.” Obviously, he was also a Christian, but he recognized the pitfall of spending all his time exchanging affirmations with likeminded people. One does not learn to argue a case by speaking only to people who are already on one’s side. When you’re ready to exercise your faith, flex your muscles a bit, you have to talk to those who don’t share your view, AND you have to listen to them. Really listen.

Yet I know many people today who never “sally forth” from their cloister and enter the arena where the real race is taking place and where the prize is available to those brave enough to enter the fray. Their only news sources are Fox News and a few others approved by the grand poohbahs of evangelicalism. They have their own books. They have their Rush Limbaughs and their Glenn Becks who whip them into a frenzy and make them believe they’re staying informed. They have their own schools and colleges from kindergarten through baccalaureate—and beyond when possible—to protect them from hearing anything which contradicts their world view. And for the last few decades, they’ve had their own political party. Democrats are a tiny minority in most churches, and they’re usually viewed with great suspicion.

These Christians think they’re “fighting the good fight,” but in reality, they possess few effective weapons because all they ever listen to is what they already believe to be true, and the only people with whom they regularly interact are people who already think and believe exactly as they do. The evidence cited for their arguments is almost exclusively passages from the Bible, which are utterly wasted on their opponents. I taught my writing students the principle that evidence has to be accepted by the audience or it’s worthless. Think about it. If someone does not accept the Bible as an authority, you could quote the whole thing, Genesis to Revelation, and your audience would still be unconvinced because in their minds it’s not a valid source. So you can assume a huffy superiority and condemn the audience as ungodly people unworthy of your time, you can retreat into your cloister to pray they will eventually see the light and accept the Bible as proof (Good luck on that!), OR you can educate yourself (“sally forth”) on material whose validity is accepted by your audience. You don’t have to change your position, just know how to make someone see your point and maybe change their mind. I know that takes a lot more work, but it also has a better chance of winning you that “immortal garland” of success.

Time to come out of the bubble and into the arena. Live in the real world. Accept that the world has changed and that no one has all the answers to every situation. Accept that no one has a monopoly on knowing the mind of God. Read. Think. Talk to some people you don’t agree with and maybe don’t even like. Learn from them. And then just maybe you’ll win a prize or two.