One of the prongs of a recent political discussion has been clanging around in my head, and I have not been able to quite put it to rest. It comes from the role of faith in politics and the perception that its presence leads to oppression, if not specifically targeted at disadvantaged groups, then effectively so -- primarily women and homosexuals. Since this discussion was concerning American politics, it was really in regards to Christianity.
It bugged me, because Christianity, if properly understood, has no room for that. When it enters politics, though, that's a different story -- Theodosius's decision to establish Christianity in the 4th Century created a new privileged class within the Roman Empire and Europe hasn't been the same since and, unfortunately, frequently not for the better. This gets to the issue of "religion" vs. "faith" and, while seemingly nuanced, is significant.
This is important to me because this image that became presented, one of an oppressive and restricting Christianity is not the same image that I have of it in my experience. Christianity is primarily about love and forgiveness, because each of us has found love and forgiveness through Christ based on His mercy and nothing to do with our actions. That mercy extends to anyone who seeks it -- regardless of color, gender, sexual preference, or behavioral history. That is, it is entirely inclusive to anyone, so long as a relationship with Christ is pursued. That's at the heart of John 3:16, the verse that nearly everyone has heard at least once. Additionally, when asked what the most important commandment is, Jesus answers with love God -- and the second, love your neighbors (Matthew 22:35-40).
Christianity has no inherent political aims within its scripture, really highlighted by Matthew 22:21, "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's." We have applied a rather crude litmus test to our politics to require the appearance of Christian faith from our leaders whether they really believe it or not. It is very important to note that there are a number of ways that belief manifests itself, we are all sinners and no one really knows another's heart, so it is difficult to say who falls in which category, but the more vocal certainly get tougher scrutiny.
Rick Perry is an example of such a candidate. One of the issues that he put front and center in his ad entitled, "Strong" is one that really gives credence, unfortunately, to the position I am trying to argue against. He opens with a volley against homosexuals, which is a controversial subject. I think that Christians and homosexuals frequently get hung up on another way out of proportion to the need. While there is ample scriptural evidence that points to homosexual behavior as being sinful, it's also important to note other common things that are sinful: divorce, gossip, not giving freely, greed, and putting God to the test. There aren't really protests of objection against divorce courts, celebrity tabloids, politicians who claim to be faithful but are not with their money when their tax returns are released, television shows that have a character make a deal with God or threaten Him with unbelief unless some desired outcome is reached with nearly the enthusiasm that religious people go after homosexuals.
This sort of public reaction that we do see begs the question that some sins are worse than others. That is a rather nuanced theological question, but ultimately, sin is failing to meet God's expectations, and failure is failure. In order to reach fellowship with God, we need forgiveness from that failure, and Christ is the vehicle God provided to achieve that, out of God the Father's love for humanity. (See Romans 6:23.) Every sin is a source of separation from God -- a lack of Christlike perfection -- so we are all in this boat together. The very powerful story of Jesus and the sinful woman in John 8:2-11 shows us that we are not able to judge and should not. By judging, we are assuming for ourselves the role of God the Son, which is also sinful.
Now, this isn't to say that we shouldn't object to sinful behavior. The charge for Christians to share our story (Matthew 28:16-20) is based on a sense that we have something valuable -- a relationship with Christ, a loving God -- that others might want. It is a path to redemption, truth, and freedom. Sinful behavior is an obstacle to achieving that relationship, and not loving people is unmistakably contrary to God's will.
3 comments:
Here here! Well said!
If more Christians were like you (of the "love and forgiveness" variety), I doubt there would be as many objections to religious intervention!
I think the basis of the argument for separation of church and state is essentially an argument for autonomy balanced with the idea that in a country founded on freedom, individuals should be afforded as much liberty as possible so long as it doesn't infringe on the liberty of others.
Take the right-to-choose/anti-abortion debate. There are very strong opinions on either side of the fence. Same thing with gay rights. The problem with religion and faith being interjected into politics is that these issues are being examined through a lens that interprets the morality of these issues through "the word of God". Add to that how many different interpretations and denominations exist, and it doesn't appear to be in the common interest of all citizens to let the majority make legal decisions based on their beliefs.
There are arguably secular reasons why abortion might be argued as immoral, but I'm having difficulty understanding why gay marriage would ever be harmful. The argument I hear repeatedly is that it is against certain passages in the bible and therefore wrong. I've also heard the arguments about how it will allegedly affect children, but those studies have been more than disproved by plenty of gay and lesbian families who have wonderful children.
Every man and woman should have the right to practice a faith of their choosing--but making legislative choices (or judicial choices) based on any particular faith is harmful to the population as a whole because it limits the freedoms of those who do not share that faith. It IS oppressive. There is no logical argument to the contrary (that religious individuals are oppressed by differently-minded individuals exercising their rights in such a way that conflicts with religious beliefs). For example, if a woman marries another woman, it doesn't actually affect anyone just because they are of such religious beliefs that forbid that. If an individual's god says not to marry someone of the same gender, then they might not want to marry someone of the same gender. But let others choose for themselves.
Of course, I don't necessarily know if I'm countering what you said in your initial entry or not, because I'm not sure if you were arguing for or against religion being a part of the political process. What you seem to be arguing is for Christianity to be viewed as tolerant, loving and forgiving. But this is an issue that needs to be taken up with other Christians and has no effect on whether or not Christianity has a place in politics. Perhaps you are arguing that true Christianity does have a place in politics because it is tolerant--but even so, I would argue that faith is still a personal choice, and decisions that affect a population of varying faiths (and non-faith) should be based on sound facts, not religious decrees.
In other words -- I don't have a problem with Christians being Christians... I just have a problem with Christians writing legislation according to their faith.
@Marla Thanks!
@thegreatkatsby
In the last paragraph, you say you're not sure why I'm writing, and your first paragraph is why. Love and forgiveness are so central that those are tenets that every Christian holds dear.
Faith is one of those very personal decisions that define us as people, and faith cannot be separated from faithful people when they take a job. Like being married or where you're from or what school you went to -- like if we expected Obama to act as if he didn't have a family or forget that he is from Chicago. What you're asking for is impossible.
My goal in writing this (and really, every Christian themed entry on this blog) is to try to combat the anti-intellectual appearance of the church (and I say that in the most general of terms) because I think it's definitely a perception problem. Your objection to possibly supporting politicians because of his or her profession of faith is part and parcel to the problem; you say I might be ok, but they still stink. Well, they might still stink, but it ought not be because they profess faith. It's probably because they profess and their political lives don't match up with that profession. Another reason for writing is to refine my opinions against smart people who disagree with me you're a smart person who disagrees with me.
Now, you can very easily point to the "conservative Christian" political movement that do oppose both gay rights and abortion rights in, too frequently, rather unbecoming fashion. I think that you make a mistake leading with abortion, though, rather than homosexual marriage (I keep saying homosexual and feel very repetitive. As far as I know, it's the least offensive, so that's why I'm going with that) for many of the same reasons you say. (There is, though, the cultural issue of the word marriage being co-opted by governments when it is, in fact a religious institution. I think there is validity to the objection of the word "marriage" being used for that reason.) Abortion, though, I think is different, because the same sorts of suppression of liberties can be argued on behalf of the aborted baby.
The government legislating anything restricts freedoms. It is also an impossible order that unanimous philosophical agreement be reached by everyone subject to the law.
Post a Comment