Years ago, I had a bumper sticker on my little red Mazda that read, “The Christian Right is Neither.” I had just left the ministry and enjoyed the irony of the message. I’ve always had a liking for sly humor, especially humor that drives home a point: these were the early 1990s and the Christian Coalition under the leadership of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, to name two recognizable figures, had emerged as a powerful base for the right-wing of the Republican Party to exploit for their own Machiavellian aims. The Christian Right has become something of a powerbase for the kinder and gentler face of fascism in this country. I think that it is necessary for those of us who incline to the left to draw a distinction, however, between the political entity that the Christian Right has become and fundamentalist Christians that seek to live according to God’s will, as they understand it.
In order to be honest, and so my prejudices are identified before proceeding, I need to make a few of disclaimers here:
- I have no love for the Christian Right;
- I am not a fundamentalist Christian;
- I do not see the Bible as literally inspired and absolute truth; and
- While I believe that there is a God, I remain agnostic with regards to religious expression.
I do not dislike fundamentalist Christians. I feel that their good intentions and commitment to live lives of faith are being manipulated to establish a plutocracy in place of a representative republic in our country. I have the advantage of a rather complete theological education. While I am loathe to play the role of the pedagogue, I find that the stratagem employed by the Bush administration to play off of the faith of theologically unsophisticated persons is reprehensible to both faith and democracy.
I have known many fundamentalist Christians. The greater majority are good and moral people that do not hate others, but instead are driven by a conviction that God wishes the salvation of all through a particular experience of acceptance of Christ as a “personal savior” (a phrase that never occurs in the bible). I disdain the caricature of the lubricious deacon or elder that prays on Sunday and commits all matter of ill toward his or her fellows for the next six days. For most fundamentalists this is simply not the case. Most struggle to keep faith, to do good for others, to be decent people. As members of the left we cannot disdain their faith commitments or their choices. Indeed, we must affirm their right to worship as they see fit and to bring their voices to the dialog. I am also aware that not all fundamentalists are members of the right wing. Several have taken the biblical texts to heart that call for compassionate action on behalf of the disenfranchised and marginalized, inclusive of gay and lesbian people, undocumented people, care for the environment, and so on. The fundamentalist community is more diverse than we in the left may find comfortable; indeed while we talked about inclusivity and diversity they were doing it.
It is the coalescence of the right-wing’s political agenda with faith that I find frustrating. Neiburh was correct when he asserted that moral people as individuals are capable of gross immorality as groups. I do not believe that most Germans were immoral or cruel during the 1930s and 1940s. I am painfully aware that most said nothing as the machinery of evil became a killing machine and instigated a program of genocide that targeted Jews, Gypsies, and Gays. I cannot help but wonder if this is not possible in our country.
The Christian Right has proposed a moral agenda that includes homophobic legislation which seeks to limit the rights of citizens of our nation. The Christian Right has equated the people of God with the United States and sees no contradiction between a coalescence of God with Country. The Christian Right has stood against the rights of the undocumented and has embraced capitalism as a divine right.
The curious thing is that the Christian Right ignores the history of the church which tends toward socialism rather than capitalism. Read the Book of Acts (in the New Testament, following the four gospels). St. Luke speaks about how the church gave up all of its possessions and lived with all things in common. Each received according to need, all contributed to the good of the whole. Charity was common (dare I say welfare?) as widows and orphans were cared for by the community. The early church fathers were also of one voice in regards to material wealth through the time of Constantine when Christianity became a religio licito as the emperor embraced the faith and subsidized what had formerly been persecuted. Consider the words attributed to Jesus in St. Matthew 25:
25:31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. All the nations will be assembled before him, and he will separate people one from another like a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. Then the king will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.’ Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or naked and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ And the king will answer them, ‘I tell you the truth just as you did it for one of the least of these brothers or sisters of mine, you did it for me.’
25:41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire that has been prepared for the devil and his angels! For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink. I was a stranger and you did not receive me as a guest, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ Then they too will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not give you whatever you needed?’ Then he will answer them, ‘I tell you the truth, just as you did not do it for one of the least of these, you did not do it for me.’ And these will depart into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
There is no mention of belief in a particular creed or experience of a prescribed event: Jesus of Nazareth calls for compassion and care, the deeds of faith for those in need.
Having referenced the bible, I must say that the bible is not of one voice. It is a richly diverse document that welcomes dialog with itself as its authors attempt to parse out truth that goes beyond the literal meaning of the text. Consider how the NT authors use the OT. Even a cursory reading reveals that they were not taking the text literally. But I digress.
As a leftist I must submit that we do the nation a disservice by disenfranchising people of faith. The neo-fascists have discovered their goodwill and converted it into political capital. I think it is time for us to begin a meaningful dialog with our friends of all religious persuasion and ask what it means to be a child of God in this political reality. We need to listen and to speak. We need to learn their language so they can hear our thoughts. We need to see past the caricatures to look into the hearts of our neighbors and ask about God’s love of the poor, the broken, the disenfranchised.
Ah, but I am only a fool…
No comments:
Post a Comment