Christian Democrats: What's Next for the Religious Left?
"Democrats need to embrace a bold politics of persuasion. A politics that abandons the project of persuasion is a vessel without a sail, floating aimlessly in the sea of social media rectitude. Politics is not about being right: it’s about building coalitions on the ground so that those who are wrong don’t end up in power. While Democrats’ most active supporters focus on achieving the self comforting utopia of thought-purity to distract themselves from the Hindenburg disaster at the local level, it’s time to drive wedges at the candidate level by calling out “Christian” politicians in red and purple states when they espouse explicitly un-Christ-like policies. (As someone who has been testing out this framing in red states for years, I assure you it can cleave off a sufficient percentage of persuadable voters). If a progressive candidate is a person of faith, they must clearly articulate why the Religious Right and Christian Nationalism are not the only game in town any more. They must articulate why they should occupy the high ground. Let’s get a “Christian” hypocrite on the defensive for once!
What do we have to gain in the voter’s eye? Authenticity.
What’s do we have to lose? Democracy."
--Bjorn Phillip Beer, Christian Democrats of America Blog
I have said, in personal discussions and on this blog, multiple times, that anyone who is a sincere Christian, and who holds to the core theological doctrines of what has become known as "Evangelical Christianity" in the United States, could not possibly cast a ballot for former President 45 without compromising or abandoning some of those core doctrines. Starting with Matthew's gospel, chapter 5 and the passage known as "The Beatitudes," citing multiple references to the words of Christ himself, and those of the apostles and writers of the New Testament in their historical and theological context, the same case that is made for building the character of someone who is converted to faith in Christ can be made for discerning good from evil in order to avoid the influences of evil.
The Apostle Paul calls the characteristics of evil out, in several of his church and pastoral epistles, and contrasts them with the characteristics of good, which he calls "The fruit of the Spirit," (Galatians 5:22-26) and then, writing to the Christians in the Church at Ephesus, (Ephesians 5:3-15) he calls them out again, pretty clearly, saying that things like fornication, impurity and greed must not even be mentioned among the church, that the wrath of God comes on those who are disobedient, and therefore, do not be associated with them. I have a whole rationale laid out on this, supported by the words of the Bible, and you can find a lot of what I've written in other places on The Signal Press.
Convincing Some Christians to Avoid Casting a Ballot For Evil
Conversations that lay out the reasons not to cast a ballot for former President 45 generally go in a circle. Some Christians will agree that, yes, FP45 (I'll use this abbreviation from here on out) is evil, and no, he does not exhibit the kind of character they want to see in a leader. But... They're not electing a pastor-in-chief, they're electing a commander-in-chief. The other guy is worse so I'm voting for the lesser of two evils. He's against abortion and that's really all I care about. Well, the only sinless person who ever existed isn't running for President. I prayed about who to vote for and God told me to vote for FP45. I don't care how bad he is, he's Republican and his values are my values.
I have heard every single one of these arguments. And every single one of them goes against Christian theology and doctrine, and is completely inconsistent with what is now called a "Christian Worldview." Every single one of them.
The person you will be most able to convince to at least give this some thought, and possibly change their mind, is actually the person who is the most sincere when it comes to their Christian faith. People who aren't willing to consider anything except what they want to believe are not really Christians and they haven't really had a conversion experience. They're going on feeling, and on what they've read or heard from a favorite source or a favorite preacher, and they're not willing to be converted. They wear their faith on their sleeve, not in their soul. And they neither read nor study the Bible, though on occasion, when they want to make a point, they can find a good prooftext.
There are two political goals here in making this argument. One is to split religious righters off from the GOP vote. OK, so maybe they can't be convinced to vote Democrat. But they might be talked into not voting Republican, either. That's still a win. It's also the most likely outcome.
It's more difficult to convince someone to vote for a Democrat. Abortion is the big obstacle that gets in the way and there's an all-or-nothing approach to it in spite of the fact that there is a huge moral difference between actions and simply being a legislator who thinks the government shouldn't make that choice for someone. Conservative Christians are huge on personal responsibility, unless they can hypocritically hold someone whose politics they disagree with accountable for the choices that other people make.
But, using their argument, they open the door to being seen as endorsing Trump's immoral behavior. It's the same principle. And I can tell you, from experience, no Christian in a political discussion wants to be seen as endorsing or approving of Trump's immorality. Whether that changes anyone's mind or not, it certainly wins the point. The thought clearly causes discomfort. If a Democrat is a baby killer for voting for his party's candidates, it stands to reason that a Republican is an adulterous, sexually abusive, lying cheating scumbag for voting for Trump.
The hypocrisy of their caustic criticism of Bill Clinton for his behavior but failure to hold Trump to the same standard is icing on the cake, at least as far as the argument itself is concerned. People who genuinely take their faith seriously will give this consideration. Which sin is worse? In conservative Christianity, all sin is equal. And from their soteriological perspective, which is the bail-out for excusing any bad behavior in a politician Evangelicals want to endorse and support, there's far more evidence of Clinton's repentance and restoration than there is for Trump, who denies he's done anything requiring forgiveness and is obviously and verbally unrepentant. Debauchery and irreverance is his reputation and it's the character he wants you to see.
Lowering the Vote Totals
I agree with Beer's premise that the exposure of what he calls "explicitly un-Christian" policies, and politicians for that matter, will pull voters out of the GOP. Democrats consistently focus on policy and ideology while the right depends on social posturing and claiming superior morals and values, except when they need to win an election. Then, as they say, "we're not electing a pastor-in-chief, we're electing a commander-in-chief." That's pure hypocrisy and it needs to be called out, directly and along with all of the other inconsistency on the social agenda.
Democrats have never really been good at doing this kind of thing, because they are inclusive by nature, and hard lines don't sit well with them. But this mid-term will be a "do whatever it takes to win" scenario, and Republicans are handing them several gift-wrapped packages with "this plays well in Peoria" written all over them. There's everything associated with January 6th, including images of people in "Jesus" T-shirts and with crosses and Christian symbols on flags and banners joining a mob attacking the US Capitol and giving their endorsement and support to a seditious insurrection. Now, there's Ukraine and Trump's whole sad record of supporting Putin against the fledgling democracy.
You'll see this kind of content regularly on this blog, so keep following it.
Thanks to Bjorn Beer and Christian Democrats for the inspiration. Here's their website.
Christian Democrats of America
No comments:
Post a Comment