Tag: evangelicals

Categories
Uncategorized

You Can’t Argue with God

Barry Goldwater said this in November 1994:

“Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they’re sure trying to do so, it’s going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can’t and won’t compromise. I know, I’ve tried to deal with them.”

No matter what you think of Mr. Goldwater, you’ll have to admit he nailed this one!

Now, 25 years after this statement was made, “these preachers” (the evangelical leadership) have taken control of the Republican Party, and we’re witnessing every day that it’s “a terrible damn problem.” While 800,000 hard-working Americans have now gone a whole month without paychecks and charities are pitching in to feed our public servants, an unknown number of migrant families (thousands) have been separated and their children held in detention, the United States continues to lead the world in gun deaths every year, Russia chose our last “president” and the recipient of those favors may have been in cahoots with those granting the favors, our national security is being threatened on every level, the GOP cares about none of these things. Or at least they don’t care enough to take action and pass legislation that would change the laws and reverse at least some of the damage being done.

Others may continue to remind them of the dire state of emergency our country faces, but their Teflon shells shed those reminders like rain water, while they continue parroting their favorite talking points: stop abortion, denounce LGBTQ people, and build a wall (fence/barrier/whatever) on our southern border. Oh, and take the country back to the good ol’ days when white men were in charge and everyone else knew their places. I think that pretty much sums it up.

Since the Republican Party has become synonymous with the Far Right/Christian Right (and sadly, the Alt Right)/evangelical establishment, it’s necessary to examine that group to gain any understanding of the state of our union. Is the Christian Right a religious affiliation or a political movement? Good question. Let’s think about it.

For starters, we can eliminate the idea that this movement is in any way Christian. A Christian is one who vows to follow the teachings of Jesus, to the best of his/her ability. Jesus never mentions homosexuality, even though homosexual people existed in the ancient world, long before Jesus’ time. He just never says a word about it. Paul mentions it and the writer of Leviticus mentions it, but Jesus is silent on the subject. Another thing Jesus never mentions is abortion. On the other hand, Jesus does say a great deal about immigrants, but what he says is the opposite of what today’s Republicans are saying. It’s enough to make one wonder if these self-identified “Christians” have ever read the New Testament or know anything at all about their professed Leader.

Here are a few things Jesus said about how to treat “the stranger” among you (a common biblical term for non-native born residents of a country). First is a familiar, often-quoted passage from Matthew 25, although the context of the passage may be somewhat less familiar. Verses 31-46 of that chapter are labeled “The Judgment of the Nations” and talk about humans giving account to God for their actions on earth. I don’t claim to know much about that subject, but the context clearly says those who do the following things will find favor in God’s eyes and those who don’t will not find favor. In fact, the verses immediately preceding the ones I’m about to quote talk about separating sheep from goats, and the passage clearly states that the criteria for making that division are humans’ treatment of their fellow humans.

35 For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.’ 37 Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry and gave you food, or thirsty and gave you something to drink? 38 And when was it that we saw you a stranger and welcomed you, or naked and gave you clothing? 39 And when was it that we saw you sick or in prison and visited you?’ 40 And the king will answer them, ‘Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family,[a] you did it to me.’ 41 Then he will say to those at his left hand, ‘You that are accursed, depart from me into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; 42 for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not give me clothing, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ 44 Then they also will answer, ‘Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not take care of you?’ 45 Then he will answer them, ‘Truly I tell you, just as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’

There’s plenty of room for discussion here about what’s literal and what’s not literal, but one thing is crystal clear: what separates human beings into sheep and goats, good and bad, righteous and unrighteous–in Jesus’ view–is how we treat those less fortunate than ourselves. Full stop.

And for those who prefer Leviticus, here’s another passage:

“When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God” (Leviticus 19:33-34).

Now let’s look at how these so-called Jesus followers are measuring up to the standards set by the text they claim to believe and live by. They cheer a “president” who mocks a disabled reporter and dishonors a Gold Star Family. They condone imprisoning thousands of children (according to this week’s reporting, far more than we previously knew about), they condone holding 800,000 federal workers hostage to the demands of their ill-chosen “president,” they shrug their shoulders at the thousands of gun deaths reported every year, they turn a collective blind eye to those still suffering from natural disasters without adequate government assistance, they increasingly revert to racial attitudes of our country’s shameful past, and those are just the most egregious examples.

Isn’t that interesting? If these “Christians” didn’t get their attitudes from Jesus, and they clearly didn’t, from whom did they get them? Evangelicals have for decades been following authoritarian figures. Thinking for oneself is discouraged; accepting as gospel the words and interpretations of their esteemed leaders is the only way to avoid being shunned or ostracized. Such leaders as Charles “Chuck” Colson (Watergate criminal turned evangelical guru), Jerry Falwell Sr., Jerry Falwell Jr., Franklin Graham, Tony Perkins, James Dobson, et al. wield full mind control over their followers. These guys rely on cherry-picked Bible verses for their stances on issues and rebuff any attempt at disagreement, conversation, or placing the cherry-picked verses into proper historical context.

The people who willingly accept the edicts of these authoritarian leaders are the ones who have always accepted the words of their own authoritarian local pastors, many of whom are not accountable to boards of church ruling elders but who simply lead by edict in their small communities, taking their marching orders from their nationally recognized religious leaders. These are also the same people who were taught to accept the authority of the Bible as a literal book, penned by the hand of God and dropped from heaven fully edited. Never mind what inconsistencies they may become ensnared in as a result of this untenable position; these biblical literalists accept the authority of the Bible because God told them so in the Bible. No, that’s not a typo.

What happens when people so oriented hear from their authoritarian leaders that Donald J. Trump is God’s hand-picked choice for president, a prophet ordained for this time in history? I guess you already know the answer to that one. Never mind that the previous president gave a clear statement of his Christian faith and led a life much more in keeping with the standards evangelicals profess to adhere to. Nah, he’s not one of us! “He’s a Muslim, a danger to our country,” they repeat in unison as their leaders dictate. Then along comes this person whose verbal professions and lifestyle have nothing in common with their professed beliefs, but who their authoritarian leaders tell them will advance their pet causes which they believe are ordained of God even though God says little or nothing about them, and they’re cheering and chanting for the Messiah.

Fiction writers would be challenged to match today’s headlines!

Not only is this movement not Christian, it’s not conservative either, although that’s what the members like to call themselves. “Conservatism” is a term that defies concise definition, but historically it has been applied to those who value and strive to preserve (conserve) the best values of the past. Today’s “conservatives” are returning to the worst values and practices of the darkest parts of our country’s history.

Returning to Senator Goldwater’s assessment, the core problem here–and the reason our Republican-led government is stalled–is the refusal to compromise. Each of us as individuals has a few bedrock principles which are so deeply ingrained in our souls that we are not willing to consider compromise on those values. As a nation, we also should have a few of those defining values; but  they should not include treating certain people as less than human and refusing those people equal rights. And if they do, we don’t get to call ourselves a Christian nation. And the party most espousing the mistreatment of certain people groups does not get to call itself conservative or the family values party.

I enthusiastically agree with Senator Goldwater that “Politics and government demand compromise.” The compromise, however, can’t be accomplished by conceding core values; it has to be brought about through intelligent dialog on the methods by which we uphold and live out those values. For example, everyone I know–Republican and Democrat, liberal and conservative–believes our borders need to be secured and that we must monitor what kinds of people are allowed to enter and take up residence in our country. Border security is an issue on which we should not compromise; but there is much room for conversation, research, and compromise on the best way to achieve secure borders. Authoritarians readily accept their leader’s edict that only a very large wall will do. More critical thinkers listen to research and facts which show that a wall will accomplish little or nothing and that the real problems are occurring at places other than the southern border and therefore require different solutions.

Two obstacles keep our government from moving forward on border security. One is the black-white fallacy so commonly a part of today’s dialog. I’m not talking here about race but about the logical fallacy which draws a sharp divide between two extremes and considers no other options. Those citizens who oppose building a stupid, expensive wall are accused of wanting open borders and caring nothing about national security. Um, no, we’re just willing to listen to the facts which support other methods of achieving the security we ALL want.

The other obstacle that has brought us into the quagmire in which we now live is the authoritarian thinking through which millions of minds are controlled by a few powerful voices, voices which now are submitting themselves and lending extreme and dangerous power to the one voice of Donald Trump. There are dire consequences for rejecting the group think and holding a divergent opinion: Exclusion from the tribe threatens our basic human need to belong to and be esteemed within a community. And when one has been convinced that God has chosen one’s tribe–however shaky the evidence on which that premise is based–any door to dialog and compromise is slammed shut and dead-bolted.

Anyone who has attempted to reason with a Trump supporter has learned the painful lesson that reason doesn’t work. Changing supporters’ minds would require citing a more persuasive authority, and no such being exists, because God will trump your authority, and they have God in their own little box from which there is no escape. You can’t argue with God.

Categories
Politics

The Real Tragedy of Donald Trump, Revisited

On July 9, 2016–after Donald Trump had declared himself a candidate for the presidency but before it became obvious that New York playboy, real estate mogul, and reality TV clown had an ice cube’s chance in hell of actually winning that esteemed office–I wrote an article for this blog, which I titled “The Real Tragedy of Donald Trump.” To date, it has been my most-read article. In it, I said this, among other things:

“The fact that a crazy person thinks he should be president doesn’t really disturb me. Look at all the crazy people who have claimed to be Jesus! As I said at the beginning, Trump is not the cause; he’s the effect. Donald Trump would not be where he is without the 13,000,000 people who have so far voted for him. And therein lies the REAL tragedy! In the greatest and richest country on earth, 13,000,000 people feel so angry, so betrayed, so powerless, so disenfranchised, so cheated, and so dehumanized that the rantings of a crazy man are words of hope and promise! If I were drowning, I wouldn’t take time to vet the person who threw me a rope. I wouldn’t care how morally corrupt or mentally deranged the person might be; I’d grab that rope! The fact that 13,000,000 people have reached the level of desperation that a rope from Donald Trump looks like salvation is tragic.”

That was then. Now, almost a year into this sham “presidency,” I feel no compassion for those still riding the Trump Train. They’ve had as many opportunities to witness the deterioration of our democracy, to weep over the shaming of our nation on the world stage, and to recognize that they will suffer the greatest losses if Trump’s me-and-my-rich-friends-only agenda is implemented as the rest of us have had. Yet they continue to idolize him, fill his rallies, and pledge to vote for him again. How is it possible that citizens of the same country can witness the same debacle and one group call for impeachment while another group continues to cheer on their idol?

And that question brings us to the tragedy of Trump revisited. Eleven months in, the real tragedy is what Donald Trump has revealed about the state of our Union, and it’s not pretty. The real tragedy of this year-long nightmare is at least three-pronged.

Perhaps most disturbing is the reality that our “president” is in fact a cult leader. He is not recognized as a legitimate president by the sane majority. And he doesn’t care! He is content to be the president of his “base” so long as they feed his gargantuan ego with all of the adulation it requires, mock the “enemies” in the press along with him, agree with him that the Russia probe is a hoax and a witch hunt, and perpetuate the delusional belief that he is “making America great again.” The definition of narcissism–a word most Americans have learned to define and spell in the last year–is the belief that the narcissist is the only person on earth who matters and that other people gain relevance only as they serve the narcissist’s purposes. So long as Trump can retain a base large enough to ensure another electoral victory, the rest of us are just so much excess baggage. Never mind that the cult followers stand to be the greatest losers when the dreaded tax bill becomes a law and the ACA is so stripped that it no longer serves the millions of people whose lives have been saved by it. The rabid “Lock-her-up” chanters will chant on because that’s how cults work.

According to International Cultic Studies Association (ICSA), these are just a few of the characteristics of cult culture:

  1. The group displays excessively zealous and unquestioning commitment to its leader and (whether he is alive or dead) regards his belief system, ideology, and practices as the Truth, as law.
  2. Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished.
  3. The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s) and members (for example, the leader is considered the Messiah, a special being, and/or on a special mission to save humanity).
  4. The group has a polarized us-versus-them mentality, which may cause conflict with the wider society.
  5. The leader is not accountable to any authorities (unlike, for example, teachers, military commanders or ministers, priests, monks, and rabbis of mainstream religious denominations).
  6. The group teaches or implies that its supposedly exalted ends justify whatever means it deems necessary. This may result in members’ participating in behaviors or activities they would have considered reprehensible or unethical before joining the group.
  7. The most loyal members (the true believers) feel there can be no life outside the context of the group. They believe there is no other way to be, and often fear reprisals to themselves or others if they leave (or even consider leaving) the group.

This checklist will be published in the new book, Take Back Your Life: Recovering from Cults and Abusive Relationships by Janja Lalich and Madeleine Tobias (Berkeley: Bay Tree Publishing, 2006). It was adapted from a checklist originally developed by Michael Langone.

Number 1: excessively zealous and unquestioning commitment to leader. Check. Never in our history has a person wielded such unquestioned influence over so many Americans, with their full cooperation. Seems the only true words DT has ever spoken are the boast that he could shoot people in the middle of Fifth Avenue and not lose followers.

Number 2: Questioning discouraged. Check. Not only does this rule apply to the many people who have been fired for refusing to cooperate with the “boss” but it also seems to be part of what keeps followers in line. Cults give powerless people a place to belong, to feel more powerful by association with the exalted leader. The prospect of losing that newfound status is enough to keep most cult members in line–all the way to the Kool-Aid/suicide line.

Number 3: Elitist. Check. Trump followers belong to an elite group; they’re the only ones who are important to the “president” of their country. Therefore, they have influence which most of them have never before known. While the rest of us scream and yell about the devastation being wreaked on our democracy, these elites smile smugly over the turn of events which has made them the ones who are now heard in the highest chambers. Their “god emperor” (yes, sickening as it sounds, some of them give him that title) is hearing and serving only them. That’s a pretty intoxicating feeling!

Number 4: Us-versus-them mentality. Check. Not much commentary needed here. Just look at the deep divisions in our society–probably the greatest since the Civil War. Look and weep.

Number 5: Leader not accountable. Check. Possibly the most frustrating aspect of all is the president’s lack of oversight and accountability. I recall my intense frustration during the first few months of this administration as it became increasingly clear how much power is invested in our chief executive and how little restraint can be exercised against that office. If we learn nothing else from this debacle, we must learn how incumbent it is on us, the voters, to choose a leader who has the knowledge, experience, and temperament to be trusted with that level of authority.

Number 6: Ends justify means. CHECK!!! The party-over-country mentality of the current Republican party has caused women to vote for and support a confessed p—y grabber, a child molester, and a few indicted felons, among others. It’s caused men and women to see injustice as justice when one person in a lewd tape–the one who listened and laughed along with the joke (yes, I know that’s bad, too)–to lose his job and the one actually making the lewd comments to get a job promotion. A big promotion! It’s caused lawmakers to swallow hard at the blatant racist, xenophobic, misogynistic actions of the “president” and his followers but then do nothing because they don’t want to lose their power and control. Their new mantras are “anyone but a Democrat!” and “anything to advance the agenda.” The conscience is the first thing to go!

Number 7: Fear of leaving group. Check. Those powerless people I described in my first article as feeling “so angry, so betrayed, so powerless, so disenfranchised, so cheated, and so dehumanized” have found power, enfranchisement, and humanity as part of a sort of inner circle. The tables have been turned: now those “liberal elites” are the ones beating our heads on our desks trying to figure out how we can “take our country back.” The Trump Cult is a place to belong, a place to feel loved and accepted–however deceiving those sentiments may be. That Kool-Aid is tasting pretty sweet. Right now.

According to Adrian Furnham, Ph.D., in a Psychology Today article, group membership offers several seductive benefits: friendship, connections, identity, an opportunity to make a contribution. I get that. However, I feel only disgust and disdain for a “leader” who is willing to destroy the whole world to feed his own ego and bank account and equal disgust and disdain for those who blindly follow and give him the power to wreak his destruction.

How often have you heard the word “tribalism” used to describe current relations among the citizens of our country? The state of discord, division, and outright hatred among Democrats, Republicans, and Independents or liberals, conservatives, and moderates is the second prong of the real tragedy of life with Donald Trump as “president.” “Tribe” has a positive meaning in modern parlance: it means our group of friends, our “peeps,” the folks we look to for friendship, social engagement, understanding, and support. And that usage has a great deal in common with the negative form of tribalism which so defines our modern political landscape.

Writer and editor Elisha Madison offers this definition:

“A common definition for a tribe is a group of people that all have common ancestry, or a common ancestor, a common culture, and live in their own enclosed society. Other names for a tribe are a clan [sic], which is used in some European countries, and family. The idea of a tribe goes back to ancient times when Rome would create divisions within society due to class, family, and money. These divisions were tribes.”

The tribal groups which exist in modern-day America don’t necessarily share common ancestry, but each one clearly shares a common culture and a tendency to live in its own enclosed society. The divisions among the various tribes have become such deep chasms and so impossible  to bridge that any cooperation or coexistence among them has been rendered all but hopeless. I have come to detest false equivalencies: lying is okay because everyone does it, Democrats do the same thing, both parties are corrupt, etc. Hogwash! The modern Republican party is so off the charts, there is no equivalence in the Democrat party and perhaps none in American history. In this one aspect, however, that of demanding adherence to the tribe’s belief system, I’d have to say we are all guilty. A Republican who accepts abortion and a Democrat who questions it or thinks perhaps some restrictions should apply are equal candidates for censure and possible banishment.

Ms. Madison goes on to list core characteristics of a tribe. I’ve selected the ones which apply to this discussion.

The first is unity. Better a child molester than a Democrat is a perfect example. He may be a child molester, but he’s our child molester. He may be a genital grabber, but by god, he’s our genital grabber. As in the cult culture, repugnant values can become acceptable so long as those values serve to create and maintain unity within the tribe. Ancient tribes’ physical survival depended on unity, and modern tribes are no different, except that now we’re fighting for the survival of our agenda, our prejudices, our political dominance.

According to Ms. Madison, many tribes live in a specific territory. I think that sounds a lot like “red states” and “blue states.” President Obama tried to convince us to stop being red states and blue states and get on with being the United States, but lots of people didn’t buy that idea; so we remain red tribes and blue tribes.

A third characteristic is common language and culture; and although most of the people discussed here speak English, the tribes have clear differences in culture and in the language they use to encode their ideas, beliefs, and values. What one tribe calls political correctness, for example, another calls respect, equal treatment, and kindness.

This characteristic may be most significant of all:

“Another commonality is their belief systems. Most tribes will all worship the same god or gods, and follow the morality of the common religion. Another factor is internal government. Most tribes have their own political systems within their own people and usually do not recognize outside laws. They will vote for and appoint chiefs and leaders to help rule their communities. This means if someone breaks a law, they address it within the society . . . This is called tribal sovereignty.”

So how does a crotch grabber become “president” and a pedophile become a senator? They are held accountable only to the laws of their tribe, not to those of the broader culture or system of laws. They are judged and found innocent within the tribal unit, everyone else’s objections be damned. The common religion even allows the pedophile to keep preaching morality and asserting his moral superiority in the faces of his accusers. The opposing tribe members are held to far different standards than one’s own tribe members. Hence, the Democrats have lost a long-serving representative and a conscientious senator while the Republican “president” retains his office and a Republican pedophile prepares to step into the same august body that called for the expulsion of a Democrat who was careless and foolish, even though he expressed remorse and accepted responsibility for his actions. The only metric for judging these incidents is the internal law of the tribe; absolute moral standards do not exist.

Here’s Ms. Madison’s summary statement: “Ultimately, a tribe is a nation within a nation. They are people that have created their own societies and rules, and live by them.” Bingo! I think we know now what we’re dealing with.

Most tragic of all is the perversion of Christianity under the evangelical take-over of the Republican party. That problem may seem to be of no concern to mainstream Christians, non-Christians, and adherents to other religions; but make no mistake, we all have been affected by evangelicalism because without that group as a powerful voting bloc, we would have a different person sitting in the Oval Office today. And if we have any hope of restoring intelligent leadership to the executive branch of our government, we must–like it or not–confront this group.

Since white evangelicalism and republicanism are practically indistinguishable these days, it’s become imperative to recognize the stark reality that evangelicalism is as different from Christianity as ISIS is from Islam. Evangelicals can’t be allowed to peddle their deviant ideas as the will of God or as in any way a representation of Christian belief. The modern white evangelical movement is a political regime operating under the guise of a religious organization. The enemy here is not Christianity, religion, faith in God, or people trying to follow the example of Jesus. The enemy is extremism and the resultant hatred, bigotry, and injustice.

White evangelicals are a tribe, and their tribal laws supersede our national laws. Yet because they are in fact a political regime and a pseudo religion, they can’t be satisfied with simply living within their own tribal bubble. As supposed “ambassadors for God,” they must impose their superior laws on the larger culture, because that is the will of God, according to their cherry-picked passages from the Bible.

As a religion, evangelicalism is weak and pathetic. It’s a set of rules based on those cherry-picked Bible verses which in no way resemble the life of their namesake, Jesus Christ, and in no way lead adherents to follow Jesus’ example. Increasingly, evangelicalism is the polar opposite of Christian belief and conduct.

As a tribe, evangelicals have all of the core requirements: unity, strong “red” territories, their own culture and language, and tribal sovereignty. Leaders such as Franklin Graham, Jerry Falwell Junior, and James Dobson stand as the unquestioned dictators of both religious tenet and political philosophy. It’s hard to fathom the depth of hypocrisy in statements such as these:

“Never in my lifetime have we had a president willing to take a strong, outspoken stand for the Christian faith like President Donald J. Trump has. Whether you are Protestant, evangelical, Orthodox, Catholic–all Christians need to get behind him with our prayers.” Franklin Graham

“I think evangelicals have found their dream president.” Jerry Falwell Junior

“Only the Lord knows the condition of a person’s heart.  I can only tell you what I’ve heard.  First, Trump appears to be tender to things of the Spirit.” James Dobson

Not one of these spokespersons for hypocrisy can offer a coherent defense of his statement, because of course every statement is pure malarkey (my favorite Joe Biden-ism). What is it about sexual assault, cooperating with a foreign power, employing felons, probably being a felon, bigotry, misogyny, xenophobia, tweeting out insults, provoking wars, and you know the rest of the list–what part of that screams “I’m a Christian”? What part of endorsing an accused child molester says “I believe in Jesus and strive to follow his teachings” or “I’m tender to things of the Spirit”?

And that brings us to the real reason we all have to pay attention to these twisted people: they are a modern political juggernaut. They’re the reason Donald Trump was elected. They’re the reason current congressional leadership is what it is. They’re the reason Neil Gorsuch now occupies a seat on the Supreme Court. They’re the reason our education system is being dismantled by Betsy DeVos. They’re the reason people are leaving the church in droves, weakening a vital voice in establishing justice and equality for all.

Christians are as appalled by these imposters as non-Christians are, so the answer is not to tax all churches or quiet the voices of those who call for justice in the name of their faith. The answer is to identify evangelicals as charlatans and do our best to unseat them from their places of power and influence.

What then is the real tragedy of Donald Trump? The tragedy is that a morally bankrupt person occupies the highest office in our land and daily degrades that office and degrades our country’s standing in the world. The bigger tragedy is that millions of voters still don’t see what is unfolding before their eyes. Cultism, tribalism, and evangelicalism conspire to keep people blinded to the evil that is transpiring. Our cultural values are being turned upside down: wrong is right, immoral is moral, evil is good.

No one is quite sure who said it, but we’ve all heard the quotation, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” Martin Luther King Junior said, “Our lives begin to end the day we remain silent about things that matter.” Dr. King also said, “Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.”

What can one person do in the face of such seemingly insurmountable obstacles? Show up, speak up, be the light, and be the love. And keep doing it all even when you see no results. Good is more powerful than evil, if enough good people have enough persistence and patience.

 

 


 

 

 

 

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!