Tuesday, August 09, 2005

The Politics of Jesus... aka: scary rant

Politicized Christianity is a very real and powerful tool that operates within the machinery of contemporary U.S. power struggles. It is a movement that is frequently acknowledged by pundits and taken advantage of by politicians. Yet very rarely is this “Christian” agenda publicly scrutinized to determine how closely it reflects what it purports to represent, the teachings of Jesus. In an odd sort of way it has become the elephant in the living-room. It’s there. Everyone knows it’s there. Yet, probably as the result of a cultural hypersensitivity to religion, Christian issues are rarely directly evaluated. The only question posed involves determining whether a given issue is or is not part of the accepted Christian agenda. Since Christian faith is the determining factor for how many Americans will vote, then perhaps current issues should be considered directly in relation to the teachings of Jesus. It would seem that an important question for Christian voters to consider would be, based on his words as recorded in the New Testament, what stance can it be safely assumed that Jesus would take in relation to any specific issue? Of course the question ultimately arises, is it even possible to argue that Jesus would support direct political involvement?

In terms of the fundamental question of direct political involvement, it is interesting to note that there seems to be no place in the Bible where Jesus calls on the government to act in a particular way. He never asks the government to enact laws to change behavior. He seems, in fact, to support freewill and Jesus, rather than legislating behavior, calls for individual/personal change and a concern for how people act toward one another. When He speaks of government, He does so as a true outsider. He is in no way a part of an earthly power structure nor does He seek a position within that structure and, alternatively, He does not seem to advocate that His followers seek such positions. His statements, concerning worldly government, are generally along the lines of those found in Matthew 18, verses 25 through 27, and Matthew 22, verses 17 through 21; in which He tells Peter that tribute (tax) is collected from those that are “strangers” to the “King(s)”, and not from the “children” of the “King(s)”. He asks Peter, are not the children of the King free? He goes on to say “render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.” What we get from this is that the children of God are strangers to the earthly Kings, but not to the Heavenly Ruler, and they are free in that they are the children of this greater King. Consequently the children of God owe nothing of real value to the earthly Kings. The value of the money used to pay taxes comes from the authority of the worldly government that issues it, in this case Caesar. Its value does not come from God and is therefore not a thing of God. This has interesting implications for Christians concerned with taxes, and the distribution of resources.

Assuming that Jesus would support direct political involvement, there often seems to be an inconsistency present in much of current American Christian Politics, an inconsistency emphasized in the preceding citations. Somehow the ideals of a market-based society have become intertwined with what is considered a Christian agenda. The “bottom-line” is seen as being as important as the right or wrong of many social issues. The lines between economic conservatism, political conservatism, and capitalism have become increasingly blurred. Voters, whether Christian or otherwise, will often vote based on their “pocket-books”. Frequently the same political platform that is “Pro-life” will oppose certain environmental or health care initiatives on the grounds that the cost will be too great.

Over and over again in His teachings, Jesus admonishes His followers not to trust in worldly riches (Mark 10, verses 17 through 27), not to value too much the wealth of the world, for it is fleeting. He directly tells one follower to sell everything he has and give it to the poor, in order to receive eternal life – such an act could not be described as economically conservative. If Jesus can be said to have a political agenda then it is based on the need to care for the poor. No where does he say this more clearly than in Matthew 25, verses 34 through 40; where essentially He tells His followers that anything they have done for the poor (the “least”), they have also done for Him and it will be remembered. If this approach is to be applied to a larger political agenda; where would statements like this put Jesus on issues such as Universal Health Care or Social Security?

If we are to look at homosexuality or other questions of lifestyle – not to debate the rightness or wrongness of these choices – but to discuss how tolerant we should be of those who might make these choices, what did Jesus say that applies? Matthew 7, verses 1 through 4: “Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged; and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?” In Mark 10, verses 26 and 27; when asked who can be saved? Jesus replies, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.” This suggests that human beings are incapable of being sin-free and as a result are unable to “save themselves.” According to the teachings of Jesus, it is only through God’s forgiveness and tolerance that humans are capable of being “saved.” If we want to be forgiven – to be accepted by God – then Jesus would suggest that we had better forgive and accept as we would have God forgive and accept us (Mark 11, verses 25 through 26). In Jesus’ teachings no distinction is made between the severity of types of sin – merely an acknowledgement of the inherent sinful nature of all humans; an admonishment to try to do better and above all to take care of one another. In other words, it seems that Jesus would have us not be so concerned with the sins of others, but with our own sins and our treatment of our fellows.

And what would the Prince of Peace say about Pre-emptive war? How would He feel about our invasion of Iraq? Luke 6, verses 27 through 38 says, in part, “… Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you. Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you. And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away they cloak forbid not to take they coat also…” And when Jesus was being taken by the Romans, he said to Peter (Matthew 26, verse 52), “Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.” What sort of foreign policy does this offer?

No one, of course, should be persuaded by these tentative examinations of current issues but it suggests that religion has too often been used to promote political ends. If Christianity is to be used as the source of authority for any political agenda, then this is a relevant and necessary public debate. We need to ask ourselves what can we do to foster an environment in which this sort of discourse might move forward unencumbered and with a place for all voices – Christian and otherwise. Are not pluralism, tolerance, and an open forum for debate, among the central principals on which the United States was founded? If we are true patriots, then these are the ideals we should strive to attain.

* All Biblical references taken from the King James Version of the New Testament.

No comments: