|
Does Jesus Love Democrats and
Republicans?
Let's face
it; Jesus was not really in touch with political reality. How else
shall we understand his obvious gaff in recruiting Zealots
and tax collectors for his fledgling Messianic community?
Would any right-thinking leader believe that such extremes of
political practice, cultural outlook, and personality type could be
melded into a powerful expression of the in-breaking
kingdom?
I suspect
that Jesus would not be well received in many churches in our land.
We have a much more realistic understanding of Christian community.
We know that it is easier to get along with people who look at the
world pretty much the same way we do. After all, politics is an
explosive topic that surfaces passionately held convictions,
cultural prejudices, and profound anxieties about the current
condition and future outlook of our culture. And that means we find
it particularly helpful to associate with folks who share our
political outlook. Many churches have a definite political flavor;
they thereby send the message that to be a member in good standing
requires allegiance to a specific political party or
ideology.
A recent
book by evangelical scholar James Davison Hunter is very helpful in
framing our situation sociologically. He argues that one of the
more important cultural developments in America over the last
century is "a tendency toward the politicization of nearly
everything."[1] This is a reflection of the increasing pluralism of
American life: "The politicization of everything is an indirect
measure of the loss of a common culture and, in turn, the
competition among factions to dominate others on their own
terms."[2]
The
politics of polarization
The
ubiquity of politics has a particularly serious impact on human
relationships. Hunter borrows from the philosopher Friedrich
Nietzsche the French word ressentiment which suggests not
only "resentment" but also "a combination of anger, envy, hate,
rage, and revenge as the motive of political action." Such
attitudes are now a fundamental part of politics, and it leads to
"a discourse of negation; the condemnation and denigration of
enemies in the effort to subjugate and dominate those who are
culpable."[3] Political
advertising during the recent election season confirms Hunter's
observation.
The
challenge for the church is that we are called to bear witness to
the gospel in this cultural climate. In every culture and in every
generation the church has faced the danger of syncretism--the
absorption and transformation of the good news into something more
agreeable to the world's assumptions and preferences. I believe the
American church has succumbed to a form of
syncretism. We have allowed the church to become
politicized. This is Hunter's central concern: "It is
not an exaggeration to say that the dominant witness of the
Christian churches in America since the early 1980s has been a
political witness."[4]
But politics
is a culture of ressentiment, and it is extremely
difficult
for Christians to swim against the tide of negativism. Listen to
the way we talk about politics. It is a language of anger,
suspicion, exclusion, and violence. Current vernacular tells us we
are in a "culture war" of "bitter conflict" in which Christians
should pray, organize, speak out, etc. in order to "take back the
country" and "reclaim our Christian
heritage."
Some who
use this language defend it on the grounds that it accurately
reflects the extraordinary challenges faced by Christians in
America and that the Bible itself frequently uses the metaphors of
battle and warfare to describe the Christian life. Paul exhorts
believers to "put on the full armor of God" (Eph. 6:11); he
encourages Timothy to "fight the good fight" (1 Tim. 1:18); and he
testifies at the end of his life that he has done the same (2 Tim.
4:7). Even our Lord said that he did not come to bring peace but a
sword (Matt. 10:34).
The
dangers of war talk
So if
Christian faith has a warfare motif in its history anyway, what's
the problem? Why not use this rhetoric to mobilize believers for
action? The answer is that, in the current political climate,
warfare language is particularly susceptible to misunderstanding.
John Woodbridge of Trinity Evangelical Divinity School addressed
this some years ago when he warned of the "dangers of war talk." He
pointed out that "culture-war rhetoric leads us to distort others'
positions, to see enmity in place of mere disagreement." But
equally problematic is the fact that war talk "distorts our own
position too--making our message seem mainly to be angry criticism
when it ought to be the reconciling gospel of Jesus Christ."[5]
Habitual
use of such language may also result in a distorted
self-understanding--we may allow conflict metaphors to
dominate our identity and forget that we are people of peace called
to be peace-makers. We may forget that the battle is not ours but
the Lord's. Or to say it slightly differently, we are in a battle,
but the real battle is not political (although it impacts
every sphere of life including politics).
The point
is that we must think about our circumstances missionally.
The rapid decline of Western culture is sad and disturbing to many
of us, but the West is not the kingdom of God (as majority-world
Christians are quick to remind us). A missiologist friend of mine
says that American Christians are too pessimistic because they
don't have a broader vision of the extraordinary expansion of the
gospel that has happened around the world in the last
century.[6]
The danger
associated with politicized churches is that we lose our vision for
the reconciling power of the gospel. We forget that the kingdom of
God is the peaceable kingdom that forms one people of God from
myriad languages, cultures, nations and tribes. And this includes
the Democratic and Republican tribes.
A
political fast
It appears
that Jesus loves Democrats and Republicans. If that is so,
American churches need to reevaluate how their political posture
has shaped their proclamation and embodiment of the gospel. In a
culture that politicizes nearly everything, politics itself becomes
an idol. We assume that politicians can do much more than is really
the case. We exchange kingdom hopes for political promises, and we
are bound to be disappointed--all idols disappoint their worshipers
in the end.
We need to
take politics and politicians less seriously. Perhaps our churches
should consider a fast from politics. Fasting is temporary
abstinence from food to remind us that food itself can become an
idol. We don't live by earthly bread alone but by the bread that
comes from heaven. Worshiping and serving the living
God is more critical than caring for our needs and our
agendas.
Maybe we
need to step out of the arena of politics, at least until we can
get our eyes back on the kingdom of God.[7] Until we realize that politics is
not everything. Until we stop taking politics so seriously.
Until our churches can extend the love of Jesus equally to
Democrats and Republicans.
How about
an experiment in which we give up political discussion for three
months? We could abstain from reading political
editorials, avoid political jokes around the water cooler, refuse
to comment on the latest political gossip (there is lots of that!),
and simply pray for (not against!) political leaders. What might
this do for us? Might it decrease our anxiety levels? Could it
increase our spiritual energy? Would it help us to relate more
positively to others? Would it invite a deeper experience of the
power of the gospel among us?
**********************
In my next
article I want to think further about the church's role in a
society dominated by politics and culture wars.
[1] James
Davison Hunter, To Change the World: The Irony, Tragedy, &
Possibility of Christianity in the Late Modern World (Oxford,
2010), p. 102.
[2]Hunter, p.
107.
[3] Hunter, pp.
107-8.
[5]John D. Woodbridge, "Culture
War Casualties," Christianity Today (Vol. 39, No. 3, March
6, 1995), p. 22.
[6] An encouraging book in this
regard is Mark Shaw, Global Awakening: How
20th-Century Revivals Triggered a Christian
Revolution (IVP, 2010).
[7] Hunter suggests that "...it
may be that the healthiest course of action for Christians...is to
be silent for a season and learn how to enact their faith in public
through acts of shalom rather than to try again to represent it
publicly through law, policy, and political mobilization." Hunter,
p. 281.
|
