In today's world, Christians are not viewed warmly when they take a moral stand. We say, "Homosexual behavior is a sin" and we're intolerant. We say, "People should marry before they have sex" and we're narrow-minded. We declare with our vote, "Marriage is defined as the union of a man and a woman" and we're meddling with others' civil rights. "Why don't you be more open-minded?" people ask.
The perception, I think, in the minds of many people is that it is about power. The "right wing conservatives" are trying to maintain power over people by meddling in morality. The reason that many think this is the motivation is, well, because it is. Some people use Christianity as their tool of choice to maintain their power. And why not? I mean, what could be more authoritative than God Himself? Of course, this view completely neglects the fact that Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world" and ignores the fact that Christianity isn't about worldly power. Therefore, those who use this approach do so in violation of ... well ... Christianity.
What is really at work here, if not a power grab? Well, some would argue "Since Jesus's kingdom is not of this world, we ought to simply ignore the world's politics and such. Let them do whatever they want." That sounds sensible to many, but if we admit that God's way is the best way and we are to love our neighbors, it would make no sense to abandon them to these destructive processes. So on what basis should Christians (you know, those who actually want to follow Christ) intervene in world processes?
There are three aspects to this answer. First, I've already hinted at the fundamental reason -- love. If God's way is best, it would seem that we would be doing people a favor by encouraging them to be moral even if it doesn't result in their salvation. It would be a lie to suggest that this morality will make them "better people" or "acceptable to God", but it is the truth to say, "This is a better way to live." It would be in their best interest, then, to engage the world systems of politics, economics, education, and so forth to push a Christian worldview. Second is the Gospel itself. When Paul set out to explain gospel in his epistle to the Romans, he started with the bad news. He didn't sugar-coat it. He didn't pull any punches. We try to many times, but he didn't leave it up for grabs. "Who is good enough to get to heaven?" "No one!!!" He beats that drum for nearly three full chapters. So, to properly understand the Good News, you have to know the bad news. If we allow the world to accept as "normal" that which God calls evil, then on what basis will we be able to call them to repentance? "You're doing this wrong!!" "No we're not." Whether or not they accept the truth, if we hold to it, there will still be ground for the bad news. The third aspect is the one in the Sermon on the Mount. "Let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven" (Matt 5:16). It's not a matter of power. It's a matter of example. We need to remain engaged with the world, living examples of what is right.
There are certainly those who use religion (of all sorts) as a tool to gain power. That's fine for them. It's wrong for us. Christianity is not about power. It's about a relationship with Christ. We do need to stand our ground. We do need to call for repentance. We do need to maintain good works. These aren't for the sake of power. They are for the sake of those around us. It makes a better world for everyone, gives a place to stand when we call for repentance, and gives us the opportunity to shine by living exemplary lives. Perhaps it doesn't look a whole lot different than those who use it to grab power. The motivation, however, is radically different.
6 comments:
Yes, it is all about love -- real love -- the kind that has people's long term best interests at heart. If we can do good then we should do it, so of course our faith should inform our views on political matters. But you are right in saying that we shouldn't abuse it just to gain power.
In today's world, Christians are not viewed warmly when they take a moral stand. We say, "Homosexual behavior is a sin" and we're intolerant.
There may be some truth to this. A similar thing happens when liberal Christians say, "This war is sinful" - they are accused of being unpatriotic, hateful, delusional, etc, etc.
I know as a fact that back when I was more conservative/traditional in my thinking, when I said, "homosexuality is a sin," it was not meant to be anything but loving - because I love gay folk, I wanted them to know what they were doing was wrong, harmful to them. So, I "get it," that just saying "X is a sin," does not necessarily equate with being intolerant or hateful.
At the same time, do you think it entirely possible that at least sometimes it's the way that Christians (or, indeed, opinionated people of any faith tradition) make pronouncements upon sinful behavior that is the turn off, and not having the position itself?
The liberal (Christian or otherwise) who spits on a war veteran and calls him sinner IS going to be perceived as hateful and ugly. On the other hand, the conservative (Christian or otherwise) who has gay friends, who does not make "icky" faces or "ewwww, disgusting" sounds when the word "homosexual" comes up in conversations, but instead is genuinely caring towards gay folk in word and deed - that conservative may well come across as loving, but having an opinion about the sinful nature of homosexuality.
I think part of the problem conservative christians have brought on themselves (as have other groups on other topics). If churches spend more time focusing on one sin or set of sins (homosexuality, or sexual immorality) but ignoring racism, greed, hatred, warmongering, etc, they might be accused of hypocrisy and of "picking on" one particular sin in a morally preening manner.
All of that to say: I'd suggest attitude and context have a lot to do with it.
Dan: "Do you think it entirely possible that ..."
I absolutely affirm that people do things wrong. They use "righteous indignation" as an excuse to be mean and petty. They use "Christianity" as an excuse to wage war. (Witness the Crusades.) They use "I love my wife" as an excuse to kill her ("If I can't have her, no one else will.") In many cases, the excuse is, in fact, a lie. They aren't "righteous" in their indignation; they're just mean and petty. They're not loving their wife; they're self-involved. And often -- far too often -- they're not "Christian" at all when they use "Christianity" as their reason. I said in the post, "Some people use Christianity as their tool of choice to maintain their power." The truth is that some people use Christianity as their tool of choice for all sorts of wrong things. At the same time, I need to point out that the failure of people to do the right thing does not negate the right thing.
Dan: "If churches spend more time focusing on one sin or set of sins (homosexuality, or sexual immorality) but ignoring racism, greed, hatred, warmongering, etc, they might be accused of hypocrisy and of 'picking on' one particular sin in a morally preening manner."
And, again, I agree at the outset that people do it wrong. They oppose "sin" for reasons other than love. They get irate over abortion or homosexuality or so many other things for reasons other than love. And ... they're wrong. What I was describing was what Christianity says should be the case. What I was talking about was that love is the demand of Christ, the hallmark of those who call themselves His disciples. (In that sense, then, "churches" are not the issue -- as in "places where people of faith gather". It is the individuals who follow Christ in view.)
Having said that, there is certainly a sense in which we are at war. (It's even described that way in the Bible.) We are in spiritual warfare and need to stand for Christ. That is a broad "front" (using war terminology). Sometimes the fighting is over here and sometimes the fighting is over there. Right now, as an example, homosexual behavior is trying to make society perceive that it's "normal" and "acceptable". The fighting, then, has flared up over at this point. So there are loud noises and "shooting" and such going on at this point. It's not like there are no other points. It's not like it's the only thing. It's just the current battle. That's why (if it's done as followers of Christ) there is a focus on this particular "set of sins". It isn't ignoring the rest. It's just the current fight. (I always thought it was interesting that some suggest "Why are you making this sin worse than others? Why aren't you more focused on the poor?" as if "the poor" was more important than others. In other words, while they bemoan the fact that some seem to make one sin more important than others, they are making another sin more important than others. Anyway, I thought it was interesting.)
Bottom line, I know that people do stuff wrong. Certainly there are those who do wrong in the name of Christ who are not related to Christ. And certainly there are some who are related to Christ that do wrong. I was talking not about what's wrong, but what should be the case. Christians ought to stand for what is right on the basis of love, not "power" or some other faulty motivation. Oh, and just because they stand for what is right does not mean that they are hateful, intolerant, or unkind. That's it.
And I agree with that point. Just as when peacemakers stand against a war because it is right does not mean that they hate the US or are unpatriotic or evil. Basically, I'm agreeing with you, I'm also just saying I can understand "the other side," too.
On this point, for instance...
Right now, as an example, homosexual behavior is trying to make society perceive that it's "normal" and "acceptable". The fighting, then, has flared up over at this point...
That is your take on it (and formerly mine). But from the LGBT side of things, we are fighting for what is right, too. For justice and safety and righteous treatment of our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters. We disagree about what is right on this point, but it's not the case that either side is deliberately fighting for oppression or evil. We just disagree on the details.
So, the more the Right says things like, "Gays just want to legitimize their evil behavior," "gays just want to undermine marriage," and other phrases suggesting evil intent on the part of the Other side, the more the Right comes across NOT as compassionate in the sense of Christ, but rather, narrow-minded and hypocritical.
Call things for what they are. I, for one, recognize that most traditionalists when they oppose gay marriage aren't doing so for nefarious reasons, but rather because they think they know what's best for gays. "It's harmful to engage in homosexuality," they think, therefore, it is a good to oppose any sort of "gay behavior." I recognize that they often are starting with genuinely caring motives.
But when the Right moves from, "I'm just concerned for you..." to twisting truths, "THEY want to legitimize evil, THEY are liars..." then the Right loses moral high ground.
Does that make sense?
I think we were in agreement from the beginning. I concurred that people do things wrong. I hoped to set the record straight that things should be done differently. And, I suppose, I dislike the whole "group" thing. "Christians are like ..." or "Gays are like ..." Truthfully, every Christian and every gay I've met has been an individual.
Of course, you are wrong when you say they are not trying to legitimize evil. ;)
I concur.
(um, with the whole "group" thing, not the I'm wrong thing...)
Post a Comment