Wednesday, April 13 will be the third anniversary of the Signal Press. The product of an educator who also happens to be an amateur journalist with some professional reporting and editorial experience, my intention was to bring ideas to religious and political discussions, where those intersections occur, from a much different perspective than they usually come from, that of a Christian who is a self-identified progressive Democrat who has concluded that joining the Democratic party was the only consistent political expression with my Christian faith. From the email responses I get, and some of the comments that I get, I will say that I have succeeded in doing what I intended to do.
Being connected to other blogs, including links to several similar, like-minded political or Christian, or both, sites has helped boost the readership as much as, I hope, the content has done. The counter says that 31,772 readers have hit this site this year so far, a number almost equal to the first two years of its existence. I can tell, from emails I get, that some conservatives read it, and I hope that it causes them to think things through when they do. A few responses I've received indicate that might be the case. I also get responses from like-minded individuals who point things out I might not have mentioned, or taken into consideration, or didn't think about when I was writing. I appreciate those, too, it makes me a better writer.
As a way of marking this third anniversary of The Signal Press, I've pulled out a few of the most common questions I get, and the answer that I gave in response. Perhaps that will help define my mission and purpose here a little better.
How can you reconcile your Christian beliefs with your political perspective? There are some things that go hand in hand with conservative religious convictions and conservative politics, so how do you reconcile the two?
The very core of the Christian gospel is the belief that God created human beings in his own image. The writers of the four gospel accounts of the life and teachings of Jesus capture this belief in recording his words. In the narrative known as the Sermon on the Mount, which is likely a collection of multiple messages taught by Jesus, he defines this freedom in spiritual terms. He doesn't lay out a system of following rules in exchange for blessings, he describes the practice of virtues that are character traits which have inherent value because of the way they touch the lives of other people.
According to Jesus, humans have a free will choice to make a spiritual covenant with God through what we call conversion, or salvation, which brings freedom from the sin that separates us from God When humans use their free will to respond to spiritual conviction, they are empowered to live a life that exhibits these spiritually-generated values, things that Matthew outlines in his gospel, Chapter 5:3-11. For me, personally, the way I choose to express my Christian faith is similar to Quakerism, which places a high priority on the reliable and trustworthy living according to a set of specifically identified values, including simplicity, peace, integrity, community, equality and stewardship. Being Christian is more about living by its values than pointing out where other people fall short.
Jesus made it pretty clear that the way Christians treat other people, which he defined as "loving your neighbor as yourself," was, next to honoring and worshipping God, the single most important identifying characteristic of his followers. He clarified exactly what he meant by "neighbor" in a parable, in which the character who set the right example and did the right thing was part of a minority religious, ethnic and social minority despised by the Jewish establishment.
And I find that this is far more compatible politically with a partisan perspective that values individual freedom of conscience and which creates an atmosphere in which people can follow their own convictions and make their own choices within the broader scope of what has been agreed on when it comes to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. A law can restrict or direct behavior, but it cannot enforce integrity or stewardship or peace or produce actions motivated by love. Christian theology is very clear in connecting morality to individual choice motivated by the spiritual freedom experienced through genuine Christian conversion. It loses its spiritual character and quality when it is enforced by law and is not a real choice.
America's founders did not create a nation for the purpose of enforcing Christian moral principles by law. They created a nation for the purpose of giving all people, including Christians, the freedom to live according to their own conscience and by their own beliefs and values. James Madison, one of the primary authors of the constitution, observed that making any branch of Christianity a "state church" hindered its progress, and that setting it free from the control, regulation, and political manipulation of the state was for its own benefit, enabling it to function as an independent, free church in a free state.
My Christian faith, expressed through living out its values, is very consistent with my belief in individual liberty that is a core Democratic party value. So a political position that supports the constitutional democracy under which we live, and defines the moral parameters which guarantee life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is one that is consistent with my Christian faith. Democrats are committed to preserving and protecting democracy, which supports individual rights and that is to the benefit of American Christianity, which has no restrictions placed on its freedom anywhere, for any reason.
It is a fallacy to equate conservative Christianity with conservative politics. The two things aren't the same, though I would have to say, at this point, that my Christianity defies being defined by any adjective. It is also a fallacy to claim that conservative politics are informed and driven by conservative Christianity. The religious beliefs that currently drive conservative politics, including "Christian" nationalism, along with the mix of false conspiracy theories, are not Christian, by their doctrine, theology or practice.
"Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit," said the Apostle Paul, " but in humility regard others as better than yourselves. Let each of you look not to your own interests, but to the interests of others." Philippians 2:3-4, NRSV
How can you call yourself a Christian, but support politicians who are "baby killers" and who give sexual deviants and perverts the opportunity to spread their lies?
I don't support "baby killers" and I don't support sexual deviants and perverts.
First of all, making politicians who support abortion rights for women responsible for the decisions made by those women who seek an abortion by calling them "baby killers" is no different than holding politicians who refuse to pass meaningful and effective gun control accountable for every death in a school shooting, and calling them "child killers." The American Constitution protects individual rights and makes individuals accountable for their own decisions. So does the Bible.
The constitution guarantees the religious liberty of every American, including liberty from being required to practice any kind of religion, or to follow any religious creed, doctrine or theology in order to enjoy any benefit of being an American. That means that I can believe that the Bible provides support for the belief that life begins at conception. It also means that, even though I may believe that, I do not have the right to impose that belief on someone who believes differently, and it also means that lawmakers, responsible to the people who elect them, also do not have the ability to use government to impose what is an inherently religious belief.
The same constitution gives every Christian the right and the freedom to spread their own faith and convictions. If conversion is the answer to the world's problems, then you have the right to preach your message and work toward converting as many people as will willingly listen and respond to it. Someone else might think you're just spreading your own lies, and they have the right, in this country, to think that. But they don't have the right to stop you from living according to your conscience and speaking about it. You have that right because those who hold a different religious belief, or who do not have a religious belief, also have the same right when it comes to their conscience.
I consider myself educated and informed. If I'm being honest, then I must admit that I don't really understand all that is involved with sexual orientation or gender identity. I know that being gay or lesbian or transgender doesn't mean those persons are sexual perverts or deviants and that few, if any, gay, lesbian or transgendered persons would accept that this is a choice they have made. Regardless of what you, or I, believe our Christian faith teaches us about this issue, it is irrelevant when it comes to the rights of persons in this country who are lesbian, gay or transgender, because they, like us, can live according to their own conscience which does not have to conform to any religious doctrine or theology. And their choosing to do so neither, as Thomas Jefferson said, "break my leg nor picks my pocket."
I would be in favor of government, at the local, state and national level, working to find real solutions to the underlying problems that cause most women to choose an abortion over giving birth, other than the medical complications of a pregnancy, which are personal decisions belonging to the women and their doctors. We have seen abortion numbers in this country decline, during both the Clinton and Obama administrations, because there were some programs in place that helped alleviate the poverty and hopelessness that are the major cause of abortion choices beyond medical necessity. When education is available that simply informs young people how pregnancy occurs and how to prevent it, the abortion numbers go down significantly.
According to the Christian gospel, supported by the Bible's writers, it is not our responsibility or business to judge the spiritual character of anyone else, but only that of ourselves. We are not perfect, and we live in an imperfect world. We are accountable for ourselves before a holy God. We are taught, by at least two of the apostles, and by Christ himself, not to judge others because we are imperfect and subject to judgment ourselves. Fighting a culture war with these issues at the very front of the battle not only diminishes the effectiveness of the Christian witness and testimony, but it fights against the equality that is a core value of American demoecracy.
I'd just like to know how it is possible for you to be a free thinker, well educated and observant, and still believe in the Bible, and in the existence of God, which can't be scientifically proven.
That's a fair question.
Much of that has to do with the way I was raised, though both of my parents were raised in churches that they left, and did not return until shortly after I was born. When they did go back, they rejected the superstitions and the "folk religion" that describes what they had been raised in, and chose a Baptist church with a succession of pastors who believed in soul freedom, a core Baptist principle, the belief that one must, as the scripture says in Philippians 2:12, "Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling."
Neither my parents, nor our pastors, nor my Sunday school teachers and other church leaders ever taught faith by obligation and coercion. They lived what they taught, by choice, made mistakes, acknowledged them, sought forgiveness, and didn't dwell on them. I saw something in their lives that gave them joy and a sense of real peace. Maybe there are those who will say that's just what they were used to, what they were raised with so they attributed it to God and the indwelling presence of his Holy Spirit. But it was a faith which, in practice, involved much more living by a set of values than it did doing a lot of talking about it without backing it up the words.
Is that proof of the existence of God? Is it that the existence of God can't be scientifically proven, or that science has not yet conclusively proven that God does not exist and that is something it will never prove?
It was during college, at a Baptist-related university, that I began to read and follow a group of pastors within the Southern Baptist Convention who really centered on the "four freedoms" which they believed were supported by the core teaching of the New Testament. You can google Walter Shurden's book, The Baptist Identity: Four Fragile Freedoms, and get a good idea of this particular theological principle. It's in that particular theological "camp" where my beliefs are centered.
My faith is also heavily influenced by several Quaker writers and teachers, whose theology and faith practice run in a very similar vein. Phillip Gulley, a Quaker minister, wrote a book more than a decade ago with the title, If the Church Were Christian: Rediscovering the Values of Jesus, which still sits on my bookshelf as a reference for my writing and speaking engagements. Quakers see God as an inner light, "that of God in everybody," and believe we are guided by this inner light which manifests itself in our lives as a set of values. There are people who live their lives in such a way that makes it difficult to deny the existence of God as the spirit guiding their conscience.
The values of the faith give it meaning and purpose. And I do believe that there is the spirit of God behind it, a spirit who has inspired people, at different points of human history, to point the world back toward how humans are capable of living, as intelligent beings with a free will, on this planet and in the universe. I don't think the purpose of Jesus, in the gospel narrative that he initiated and inspired, intended to have that used as a wedge to divide, or a standard by which to judge. I think, as he said, and his disciple, later Apostle John, recorded, "I have not come to condemn the world, but to save it."
So yes, I do believe God exists, and that Jesus fulfilled his divine purpose as the Christ. You can call that religious superstition or presupposition based on my upbringing. I call it faith.
So, exactly what is it that you're trying to do here?
I'm trying to point out, with plenty of evidence and a heavy dose of opinion, that the right turn taken by some branches of American politics is based on modern philosophy aimed at separating us from the idealism that our founding fathers put in place when they started this experiment in democracy. They showed the world that this works, that people live up to the best expectations when they have the freedom to determine the course of their own life, and that peace and prosperity exist side by side with pure democracy and freedom of conscience.
The old world ideas, that "nations" are put together and held together by common ancestry and culture, were shattered by America, where people from everywhere came together and put in place the potential to create the most diverse society in the world. It is a place where, if you believe in God and have some theological perspective, the way he intended the world to be. And if you're not there, then the use of the intelligence and reasoning capacity we have should inspire us to higher standards. We've shown the world how a constitutional democracy works, and it's caught on. Not everywhere, but in enough places that there's a chance we can share this planet without allowing personal ambition to destroy it.
If this country is ever to live up to its potential, we need to make the democracy work as well as we can. That means living according to values that take us to a higher standard than selfishness would achieve. So I'm trying to promote the values and inspire the readers and encourage participation and get people to vote so that we can continue to exist as a free country where individual liberty is always an ideal to achieve.
That's what I'm trying to do. So thanks for reading long enough to ask the question.
Here's a great post I'd love to share with you.
Robert Kennedy, Baptist News Global: Why Such a Need for Literalism?
No comments:
Post a Comment