Blogging, a hobby of mine for at least 15 years now, brings some interesting responses, comments and questions. On a previous blog that I wrote, which was more about Christian doctrine, theology and practice, and less about politics, I had to keep track of comments after a post almost every day. On this blog, more about politics and history than Christianity, that has not been the case. Most of the questions I get, along with comments, come via email. I always have a good time responding to them individually.
I decided to answer some of the common questions in this article. It may give some insights as to where this all comes from, my direction and my perspective.
How can you claim to be Christian and support Democrats at the same time?
I've devoted several blog posts to this subject. The bottom line is that following the principles of the Christian gospel as they are laid out in the context of the biblical record, Christian faith is apolitical. To go through a list of political issues and determine how "Christian" support for, or opposition to, each issue is an exercise in futility. There are as many Christian principles, when applied to political issues, that are violated or opposed by Republican practices and platform points as there are Democratic practices and platform points. Arguing that support for abortion and LGBTQ rights are worse, and more evil than the draconian racist, white supremacy, white nationalism, failure to address basic human rights and support for murder in schools by unregulated weapons by Republicans is not Christian, and distorting the biblical text by proof-texting to support those positions is heresy by definition.
The leadership that the Republican party has chosen is anti-Christian in its lifestyle, pursuing worldly aims related to the acquisition of wealth regardless of and aside from principled practice. The most recent Republican past-president flaunted his sexual immorality, cheated in business, is a pathological liar and a money lover, and demands personal loyalty while daring to actually criticize the teachings of Jesus Christ as inadequate in gaining worldly aims and demand that his followers follow a different gospel.
I could never be part of a political party that supports someone like that. And "whataboutism" cannot come up with any Democratic leader to compare with him. They don't exist.
As a Christian who accepts the historical context as the primary starting point for interpreting the Bible and discerning Christian theology, doctrine and practice, I find that the Democratic party supports government of, by and for the people and is consistent with Christian examples and teaching when it comes to economic stewardship, the dismissal of ethnicity, race or wealth status as a means of discriminating and the recognition of the equality of all humans (Galatians 3:25-29, Colossians 3:11, from the Apostle Paul) regardless of their economic status, race or ethnicity, or gender.
Jesus categorically rejected any alliance between politics and Christian practice. The gospel writer Matthew makes this quite clear in his narrative about the temptations of Jesus. There is significant symbolism that would have caught the attention of those who initially read that account, and whether they are illustrations of principles or a literal historical event, it is foundational to the Christian gospel that Jesus rejected its conflation with political or even religious authority and put Christianity on its own terms, without any need for dependence on political authority or power.
I see any alliance or relationship between Christianity and its institutions with government, for its own benefit, as corrupting and corrosive influences on the Christian church. There's better than 1500 years of church history, from Constantine forward, to prove that any union of church and state benefits the state, corrupts the church and leads to the distortion and destruction of the gospel of Jesus Christ. With Christian nationalism creeping into both church and GOP, that's why I'm a Democrat, and a Christian.
My whole purpose, in writing The Signal Press it to put forth opinion and though based on facts, showing that it is possible to be distinctively Christian and passionately a Democrat and that the kind of Christianity that it takes to forge a merger with extremist right wing Republicanism is not really Christian at all, by biblical definition and principle of practice. If I convince just one Evangelical Christian to do some critical thinking, biblical application and observation, and consider that the two things, Christianity and Republican party politics, are not the same thing, then I've succeeded. And I have comments that I've receive which tell me that I have succeeded.
Wow, you're a real, progressive, liberal aren't you? I guess you're a socialist, huh?
I think the outcome of the past two elections have put the buzz-word socialism to rest for a little while. Most people don't know what the word means, and equate it with dictatorial, political Marxism, which is nowhere near the same thing. Realizing it's not possible to argue with ignorance, especially when it hangs up on a single point, my preference is for critics to believe what they want. I leave plenty of explanations around for anyone who wants to make the effort to read and dispel their ignorance.
I'm as progressive and liberal as the American founders who wrote a constitution to establish government of, by and for the people. As far as being a socialist goes, I believe in universal health care accessible to all, financed by tax dollars as a basic human right, a "medicare for all" system like Canada has. I believe in government funded, compulsory education for the purpose of "filling the need of our democracy for citizens and leaders who have the intellectual, social and emotional dispositions to think for themselves, hear other perspectives, ground their view in facts, maintain patience in the face of complexity and ambiguity and act on their convictions to provide insight, understanding and empathetic courageous leadership in addressing the pressing challenges of our times."*
Is that socialism?
I believe every American, regardless of their wealth or status, should pay their fair share of taxes, meaning an amount that is as equal a percentage of their income as those of less income and wealth pay. I believe that the wealthier one is, the more they have benefitted from the protection provided by the government, both military protection of their property and legislative protection of their assets and profits, and they should bear the cost of that protection. I believe there is something wrong with an economic system where the wealthiest 1% of the population pay a disproportionately small share of their income and sitting wealth in taxes. They should pay a tax rate that is proportionate to the share of the benefit they get from the government, and there should be no way to have that deferred or excused.
I believe that it is government's responsibility, as a democracy, to use its assets and resources, as well as it's power, in any way that is constitutionally permitted, for the full benefit of its people, including economic regulation and control, especially to protect its human labor resources.
Is that socialism? Yes, that's a rhetorical question.
One of the best examples of a socialist society is found in the book of Acts, starting with chapter 2. Go take a look at that. Then we'll talk.
*Dan Frank, Administrator, Francis Parker School, Chicago, IL. in his greeting remarks to prospective parents.
There are all kinds of religions in the world, where's the objective proof for Christianity?
I usually interpret these kinds of questions and comments as "How can you believe this stuff?"
I've learned all the standard answers to the standard provocations. I'm Christian by a combination of traditions which include family background, cultural and social influences, and educational influence. I discovered, as a teenager, a sense of resentment and a stifling of my critical thinking skills resulting from three-point sermons by a preacher who supported his conclusions by attributing them to what "the Bible says" and then underlining his belief in its "inerrancy and infallibility." There had to be more to it than that.
A professor in college was the biggest influence in the way I now look at Christian faith. Up to that point, my understanding of the Bible was reduced to a verse by verse book of commandments used by both my parents and my church pastor as a means to control behavior that they feared they couldn't control otherwise. Pointing out, from a denominational doctrinal statement, the belief that "Jesus is the criteria by which all scripture is to be interpreted," he noted that Jesus taught the high level of importance of just two commandments. One, to love God with all our being, and two, to love our neighbor as we love ourselves.
Adherence to a set of doctrinal points discerned by human wisdom, via the same cultural and social influences that shaped my own early Christian experience leads to the conclusion that there's nothing to Christian faith. But the substance of Christianity is found in those two commandments. Belief in God, as a higher power prompts the incorporation and practice of real, life enhancing values and actions aimed at demonstrating our love for God by showing our love for our neighbor. Jesus defined neighbor in broad terms that can be interpreted "fellow human beings." And he didn't put any limits on what that involved.
I don't see that as "go and win converts to your doctrinal and theological perspective," I see it as "go and do your best to use your gifts, abilities, talents and intellect to make the world a better place for the people who are your neighbors." The practice of Christianity is the opposite of selfish. It does not advocate for creating a system whereby its principles and practices can be enforced by law and controlled by whomever is in the best position to claim that kind of worldly power. Whenever that has happened in history, Christianity has lost its identity as a faith, and becomes apostate.
Depending on perspective, the objective "proof" of Christianity is visible. I like to cite examples from history, like Harriet Tubman and many others like her who dedicated themselves to rescuing people from the cruelty and sin of slavery. Or the pastors and leaders of the American Civil Rights Movement, like Dr. King, who insisted on maintaining integrity and personal dignity in holding on to their values with non-violent protest aimed at gaining equal rights, a struggle which continues and has become more necessary.
I can't point to any specific objective fact that God exists any more than anyone else can point to one which proves he doesn't. But as for being able to distinguish genuine Christian faith from something that uses the name for a different purpose and objective, that's much easier to do.
No comments:
Post a Comment