For you were called to freedom, brothers and sisters, only do not use your freedom as as an opportunity for self-indulgence, but through love become slaves to one another. For the whole law is summed up in a single commandment, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." If, however, you bite and devour one another, take care that you are not consumed by one another. Galatians 5:13-15, NRSV
During the time in the 2016 Presidential election campaign when it appeared that Donald Trump might emerge as the front-runner in the Republican primaries, in a conversation with a co-worker whom I knew attended an Evangelical Christian church, I made the statement that I could not, as a Christian, justify casting a ballot for someone to serve in political leadership whose lifestyle, personal conduct and public image were as diametrically opposed to the Christian gospel as one cold get. The response I got surprised me, and clued me in as to the kind of mentality that had developed among Evangelicals connected to the far political right.
"We're not electing a pastor-in-chief, we're electing a commander-in-chief."
That wasn't the first time I'd heard that statement. It's a self-justifying response designed to completely excuse any candidate, like Trump, whose lifestyle doesn't demonstrate any real connection to the Christian faith, from any accountability when that's the candidate they want to support. There's nothing wrong with a candidate choosing to live their life in a manner that doesn't demonstrate adherence to the Christian faith, or for that matter, to any faith. In America, people have the freedom to live apart from religious convictions, in any manner in which they choose. The problem, though, for people who have married their Christianity to their right wing politics, is that they are trying to justify something that can't be justified.
What are the Implications of That Statement
There was no self-determination or choosing of government leaders during the time that Christianity was being established. Those who lived in Palestine in Jesus' day were subject to the local civil and religious law enforced by the Sanhedrin, a group of Jewish elders and teachers who theoretically earned their position through strict adherence to the Torah and who were appointed to their position by the rest of the members, upon the recommendation of the chief priest. The development of the Sanhedrin comes from the Pentateuch, and from the period of Jewish history following the Babylonian captivity, when there were no heirs to the throne of David.
Though the people did not directly choose the members of the Sanhedrin, there were standards written in the Pentateuch for those who would be elders and leaders among the Jewish people. The primary qualifications, according to the written scripture, included setting an example by being faithful to God in the practice of faith, and obedient to the Torah, the law. Those who were chosen, according to passages found in all of the books of the Pentateuch, were to be men who were honest so that they could be trusted by the people they led.
Jesus, whose life and teachings form the core of Christian doctrine, theology and practice, set the example for the kind of leaders he intended to serve in his church. He lived and taught the values he preached, outlining a specific set of character values, found in Matthew 5:1-11, which we call "The Beatitudes," that result from the spiritual transformation which takes place as a result of Christian conversion. The apostles and other writers of the New Testament put these same character values at the forefront of their message. The Apostle Paul, in defining the characteristics required for those who were set aside as officers and leaders of the church, references this list of values, in addition to specifics of a lifestyle that exhibits honesty and generates trust from those for whom the leaders are responsible.
So why, when the opportunity presents itself to have a say in choosing one's political leaders, would the values and characteristics, and the honesty and trust that are at the very core of the faith that one claims to practice, not be considered in making this choice?
Yeah, I Get It, No One is Perfect
Your pastor isn't perfect. According to the Apostle Paul, in I Timothy 3, those who aspire to the office of bishop [or elder, or pastor by extension], must meet high qualifications in order to serve. This was to build into the congregation being served the ability to trust the pastor's leadership in matters related to their own spiritual life. If the church leaders aren't committed to the spiritual principles, doctrinal practices and theological beliefs expected of the congregation, how can they lead the church to accept these things and practice them?
But, why would you hold only your pastor to those high standards, and not those who are political leaders? Why would the standard of honesty and trust for politicians be less than that of a pastor, since both have responsibility for effectively leading people and must earn confidence in their competence as a leader, as well as trust in their judgement? Holding a lower standard for political leaders means that you don't expect your country's leadership to respect your values or your faith.
And if a political leader uses his faith as a means of promoting his character, then he better live up to the same expectations as my pastor. That's my own personal goal, to live up to what I expect of the pastor of my church. So a politician who wants me to trust him or her because they include their personal faith as a Christian as part of the package had better live up to those standards, if they want my vote and my trust in their leadership.
And if those leadership qualities, including things like humility, being a peacemaker, grieving over your mistakes and desiring to do better, hungering and thirsting after righteousness, mercy, and being pure in heart, are not part of a politician's character, hiding behind opposition to abortion rights or LGBTQ rights will not impress me or get my vote. That's hypocrisy, in its purest form, and I won't be patronized, either.
Worse, even, than that is to use Christian faith as a political tool. Standing in a circle of self-appointed, so-called, Evangelical leaders with heads bowed, laying on hands is not a conversion experience, especially when the photo is circulated with clear political intentions. Genuine repentance is the first step, acknowledging the complete need for God to forgive a sinful nature. A denial of ever having done anything requiring forgiveness, accompanied by proclaiming that God is whoever or whatever one thinks he is, is not evidence of a genuine conversion experience.
I believe that the Christian conversion experience is one of complete spiritual transformation. I'm not saying it can't, or doesn't, happen in the middle of a circle of self-proclaimed, Evangelical leaders, but if, and when, it does happen, the change of character is visible, if it really did happen. And I would expect that someone whose conversion experience did take place in the presence of highly visible, well-known Evangelical "leaders" would also, presumably, be guided by those same leaders, helping the new convert understand, and begin to exhibit, the values, character traits and qualities that are the evidence of what most Christians call "new life" in Christ.
The constant lying would cease. The dishonesty and deceit would give way to behavior that would elicit trust and confidence from former opponents. The vengeance and violence that were former themes and practices, and means of self-defense would give way to leadership that sought the forgiveness of enemies. Bombastic speech and dishonest flattery would be replaced with a pure heart, meekness and a desire to use power to be merciful instead of vengeful. That's what a genuine Christian conversion experience, in the public eye, would look like.
I don't know what to call the religion that has developed out of this intersection between far right wing politics and far right wing American Christianity, but since there's already a specific definition for Christian, defined by the values of the gospel of Jesus Christ, I don't think that's what this is.
If It's Sincere, Genuine Faith is Visible Without Prompting
I can't think of another American President in recent history who is an example of living out the values and virtues of the Christian faith in a way that enhanced his leadership and generated trust more than President Jimmy Carter. It's kind of ironic in a way, and certainly very telling, that his steadfast faith, and the manner in which he lived it personally, and in which it made him into the man that he is and the President that he was has generated the most criticism from Republicans who claimed to be the party of family values.
Carter's convictions, beliefs, doctrine and theology have remained steadfast. The turn that Evangelicalism made away from genuine Christianity and into politics happened because of Carter's testimony and faith. It exposed the political motivation of Jerry Falwell, Evangelist James Roberson, and Pat Robertson, who endorsed the secular, New Age believing Ronald Reagan in 1980, separating political Evangelicalism from confessional Christian faith. Carter is an outstanding example of how Christian faith affects politics. The political movement represented by Falwell and Robertson is an example of how politics affects faith.
By contrast, the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. There is no law against such things. Galatians 5:22, 23 NRSV
By observation, it can easily be seen who exhibits and values these characteristics and virtues. And that's how the sincerity of one's faith is made visible. Go ahead, point out someone on the far political right who is an example of these values.
No comments:
Post a Comment