I always want to vote for Jesus Christ. Unfortunately he never shows up on my ballot. Which means I'm stuck voting for an imperfect sinner. How does someone of faith balance out which sinner is preferable? Often our choice is based on extremely small differences between the candidates. So how do we differentiate? Fortunately, we're not short of people who have opinions on the issue.
Jim Wallis is what I'd call a progressive Christian. I honestly don't enjoy labeling people because no one really fits in any one box, but for the sake of trying to help describe where Mr. Wallis is coming from, this label will work fine. Recently he wrote an article for the Huffington Post entitled "God is Still Not a Republican, or a Democrat." In it, he attempts to describe how we as Christians should live under the banner of Christ, not under the banner of any political party. This is a worthy endeavor! However his article was not aptly named. It would have been more accurate had it been titled "God is Still Not a Republican." The bookends of his column fits his chosen title, but the meat is devoted only to why God is not a Republican.
I understand his motivation. Christian Democrats have long felt like lepers in our Christian colony. Jim Wallis, among others, is someone who attempts to transcend that wall and unite Christians. This is a good thing. However instead of sticking with why Christians should turn our eyes towards heaven, he directs his energy at comforting Christian Democrats. Wallis presents the argument that God has given mankind a great deal of responsibilities. Responsibilities which transcend the issue of how we have traditionally defined voting our 'morals': abortion and gay marriage.
"When we hear some proclaim that voting "biblical values" only means voting against abortion and same-sex marriage, we wonder what Bible they are reading. Apparently, not the one in our hands -- the one with 2,000 verses about the poor and marginalized, injunctions to regard the earth as God's precious gift to us that we must carefully steward and appeals to the efficacy of peacemaking rather than the an idolatrous trust in military might -- all values that come from the Scriptures."
What Jim points out is not untrue. Jesus has conveyed His love for the poor and His desire that we emulate that in our own lives. Indeed God gave man dominion over the Earth, not to rule as power-hungry dictators but to care for as a steward. Christians should keep these things in mind, not just when voting but when living our daily lives. Wallis continues:
"For Americans who claim an allegiance to Christian faith, we simply plea for a reading of the whole Bible when they reflect on how their faith may influence their vote. Much is at stake, and not just on one or two issues, including the fate of immigrant "aliens and sojourners" in our land, the hunger of one-in-five children, our growing and crippling economic inequality, the stubborn and unforgivable rates of poverty in our society, the deterioration of the earth's life-sustaining capacities, and the fragile chance for peace in the Middle East and other dangerous places."
Jim is correct on one important point: God is not a Democrat or Republican. But on everything else he gets it almost entirely wrong.
Jim's first problem is he presents these issues as though they belong to one party or another; as if in considering these issues you'll immediately be able to rule out one party: Republicans. This is a complete misunderstanding of Conservative 'doctrine', which, sadly, is not uncommon this day and age. Conservatives support the poor, the environment, immigration and economic equality. Conservatives want to move to Green Energy. The differences between the two platforms can be found in how they go about resolving these issues. Believing that one party doesn't want to resolve them only plays into the vile and inaccurate political discourse so often found in today's culture. At its core, Jim's plea that Christians contemplate these issues when voting is intrinsically unhelpful because both parties support them. If you really want to know the differences between the two movements, you need to look at how those issues would be resolved.
Jim's second mistake is he premises that Christians should evolve beyond 'single issue voting' and instead consider all the issue he mentioned above. To be sure, every voter should be well informed on a great many issues, but Jim's point is no Christian should ever vote for elected office based on one issue alone, as it would be un-evolved and thus wisely avoided. This is a flawed premise. Suppose you supported Romney in the past election, but disagreed with one of his positions. In our make believe example, suppose Romney supported killing all blue-eyed people. Recent science has revealed that having blue eyes makes you more susceptible to the sun's dangerous rays, so Romney has adopted the position that we should rid our gene pool of such weakness.
This one issue would be enough to dissuade most voters from voting for Romney. Not many would say to themselves "Well sure, he wants to kill millions of people, but really he's great on the environment, he is pro-immigrant and he wants to provide for the poor, so I think I'll vote for him." This one particular issue would sway your vote. In this make-believe example it wouldn't be unwise or uncouth to base your vote on one issue.
So it is with Pro-life voters.
It is legal in the United States, in some areas, to perform partial birth abortions. If you're unaware of what this procedure is, you can Google "what is partial birth abortion." Though be warned, the images will probably haunt you until the day you die. In light of our previous example, we can't fault a Pro-life voter for being a 'single issue voter' when it comes to partial birth abortion. Is there any single issue more important than the preservation of life? Mr. Wallis' first mistake was a fundamental misunderstanding of conservative ideals, but his second is trying to assuage Christian's guilt when they vote for a Pro-Choice candidate. He does this by painting the picture that God would want your vote to be more nuanced.
As a Conservative it is particularly annoying that Mr. Wallis presents a picture that, considering the issues above, would help you eliminate either party. But I'm used to people in today's world presenting this false picture of Conservatism. However, his second mistake is much more alarming because it is a misrepresentation of Scripture.
We all know the story of the rich man's conversation with Jesus, but let's review a bit:
"Good teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?"
"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good--except God alone. You know the commandments: 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, do not defraud, honor your father and mother.'
"Teacher," he declared, "all these I have kept since I was a boy."
Jesus looked at him and loved him. "One thing you lack," he said. "Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."
At this the man's face fell. He went away sad, because he had great wealth.
Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, "How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!"
This account is powerful both in what is says and what it does NOT say.
What it says: When Jesus was approached by the rich man He told him what he, the rich man, had to do to gain eternal life. Jesus challenged him personally. The challenge was to give away all his possessions, because Jesus knew he held them dear.
What it does NOT say: After his exchange with the rich man, Jesus lamented to His disciples how difficult it is for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God, but Jesus did NOT say "Ok Matthew, he obviously won't give away his wealth, but the poor still need assistance. So we need to take it from him. Since you're a tax collector, put a levy on this guy's earnings so we can pay for food for the poor." Jesus' instruction was to the rich man and involved what the rich man should do. Not what others should do to the rich man.
American Democrats get this all wrong, as does Jim Wallis. They confuse what Jesus is saying. They miss that God is calling us individually to provide for the poor. Instead they believe they can accomplish the same thing if we tax other people to provide for the poor. Somehow, taxing others makes them feel morally superior to those who are giving their own wealth away to the poor. In fact, if it were an American Democrat in this exchange instead of the rich man, it would have gone something like this:
"Good teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?"
"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good--except God alone.
You know the commandments: 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, do not defraud, honor your father and mother.'
"Teacher," he declared, "all these I have kept since I was a boy."
Jesus looked at him and loved him. "One thing you lack," he said. "Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."
At this the Democrat's face fell for he had great wealth. But he had an idea.
"Teacher, I have wealth to be sure, but my neighbor has even greater wealth. I will petition Caesar to tax the wealthier-than-me to provide food and clothing to the poor. And at this, I will enter heaven."
The modern American Democrat does not advocate selling their possessions to give to the poor. Instead, they vote to sell someone else's possession to give to the poor in order to make things more 'fair'. They ask the rich to 'pay a little bit more', to quote the President. And then they feel morally superior in doing so! (A great illustration of this is here) Let us be perfectly clear about this: Nowhere in God's Book does it say this is praiseworthy. In Matthew 25:40 Jesus says "Whatever you did to the least of these, you did to me(emphasis mine)." That passage does not read, "Whatever you voted to have done to the least of these, you voted to have done to me." Christ is not interested in what the majority forces the minority to do. Jesus is interested only in your heart, on a personal level. If you vote to take away from one person to give to another, you're doing that for reasons that are extra-Biblical.
In some respects the American Democrat's answer to this issue is worse than the rich man. Not only is he unwilling to give up his possessions, but he is willing to steal from his neighbor to fulfill the same obligation. And after stealing from his neighbor he believes himself morally superior to his conservative brethren because he was willing to 'provide for the poor' while his conservative brother was, in his view, not willing.
Conservatives are not angels in this example. There are plenty of Conservatives who are also unwilling to give their own treasure to the benefit of others. But Jim Wallis, among others, would seek to convince the Christian Democrat they should feel comfortable balancing their moral "superior" position of taxing other people's wealth to provide for the poor with voting to continue to allow the killing of innocent children. Jesus never preached this message. Instead He told us to sell our 4,000 sq ft home, buy a 2,000 sq ft home, and give the rest to the poor. He is telling me to stop buying so many movies, and devote those savings to the poor, the orphan, or the widow.
The option Jim Wallis' presents is not Biblical. It is incorrect, and by it Christian voters have been convinced that they have evolved beyond 'single issue voting'. Convinced that they are among the special breed of Christian voter who has transcended the abortion issue. That they can vote for a candidate who is for partial birth abortion, as long as he is also for taking from the rich to give to the poor. That they can vote for a candidate who is against providing care for viable babies in the event of a botched abortion, as long as he is for Green Energy.
An estimated 6.4 million Evangelicals voted for President Obama in the past election. The President won approx 50% of the Catholic vote. Yet once you get past the politically divisive, imaginary characterization that Conservatives hate women, hate the poor, hate homosexuals, hate immigrants and hate minorities, it wasn't difficult to identify the candidate who best exemplified Christian values. There was only one candidate who is against restricting partial birth abortion; one candidate whose party is against restricting gender-selective abortion; one candidate who referred to babies as a 'fetus...outside of the womb; one candidate who is against providing life-saving care to babies born alive after a botched abortion; only one candidate who was endorsed by Cuba, Russia, and the President of Iran (who wants to kill Jews and Christians); one candidate who released an e-card advising women to vote as if their 'lady parts depend on it'; one candidate who supports gay marriage; one candidate who supports Planned Parenthood which not only advocates for abortion but advocates for a sexual lifestyle antithetical to Biblical teaching; one candidate who advocates taking from one citizen to give to another; and only one candidate who aired an ad comparing voting for him to losing your virginity.
Mitt Romney is not Jesus. But the contrast between him and Mr. Obama was and is obvious. None of those things above reflect anything having to do with Christian values. Which makes the proliferation of Christians who voted for him particularly disappointing.
Jesus is not a Republican, nor is He a Democrat. He didn't advocate that we get our government to provide for the poor, He asked us to. He is Jesus, Lord of All, our Savior and Hope. Mr. Wallis is correct in advocating that those of us who follow Christ shed our allegiance to political parties, that we look at the men or women running and ask "Who best reflects the values I believe in?" And that after our vote, we come back together as one body.
And re-focus our attention on the One who saved us.
"When we hear some proclaim that voting "biblical values" only means voting against abortion and same-sex marriage, we wonder what Bible they are reading. Apparently, not the one in our hands -- the one with 2,000 verses about the poor and marginalized, injunctions to regard the earth as God's precious gift to us that we must carefully steward and appeals to the efficacy of peacemaking rather than the an idolatrous trust in military might -- all values that come from the Scriptures."
What Jim points out is not untrue. Jesus has conveyed His love for the poor and His desire that we emulate that in our own lives. Indeed God gave man dominion over the Earth, not to rule as power-hungry dictators but to care for as a steward. Christians should keep these things in mind, not just when voting but when living our daily lives. Wallis continues:
"For Americans who claim an allegiance to Christian faith, we simply plea for a reading of the whole Bible when they reflect on how their faith may influence their vote. Much is at stake, and not just on one or two issues, including the fate of immigrant "aliens and sojourners" in our land, the hunger of one-in-five children, our growing and crippling economic inequality, the stubborn and unforgivable rates of poverty in our society, the deterioration of the earth's life-sustaining capacities, and the fragile chance for peace in the Middle East and other dangerous places."
Jim is correct on one important point: God is not a Democrat or Republican. But on everything else he gets it almost entirely wrong.
Jim's first problem is he presents these issues as though they belong to one party or another; as if in considering these issues you'll immediately be able to rule out one party: Republicans. This is a complete misunderstanding of Conservative 'doctrine', which, sadly, is not uncommon this day and age. Conservatives support the poor, the environment, immigration and economic equality. Conservatives want to move to Green Energy. The differences between the two platforms can be found in how they go about resolving these issues. Believing that one party doesn't want to resolve them only plays into the vile and inaccurate political discourse so often found in today's culture. At its core, Jim's plea that Christians contemplate these issues when voting is intrinsically unhelpful because both parties support them. If you really want to know the differences between the two movements, you need to look at how those issues would be resolved.
Jim's second mistake is he premises that Christians should evolve beyond 'single issue voting' and instead consider all the issue he mentioned above. To be sure, every voter should be well informed on a great many issues, but Jim's point is no Christian should ever vote for elected office based on one issue alone, as it would be un-evolved and thus wisely avoided. This is a flawed premise. Suppose you supported Romney in the past election, but disagreed with one of his positions. In our make believe example, suppose Romney supported killing all blue-eyed people. Recent science has revealed that having blue eyes makes you more susceptible to the sun's dangerous rays, so Romney has adopted the position that we should rid our gene pool of such weakness.
This one issue would be enough to dissuade most voters from voting for Romney. Not many would say to themselves "Well sure, he wants to kill millions of people, but really he's great on the environment, he is pro-immigrant and he wants to provide for the poor, so I think I'll vote for him." This one particular issue would sway your vote. In this make-believe example it wouldn't be unwise or uncouth to base your vote on one issue.
So it is with Pro-life voters.
It is legal in the United States, in some areas, to perform partial birth abortions. If you're unaware of what this procedure is, you can Google "what is partial birth abortion." Though be warned, the images will probably haunt you until the day you die. In light of our previous example, we can't fault a Pro-life voter for being a 'single issue voter' when it comes to partial birth abortion. Is there any single issue more important than the preservation of life? Mr. Wallis' first mistake was a fundamental misunderstanding of conservative ideals, but his second is trying to assuage Christian's guilt when they vote for a Pro-Choice candidate. He does this by painting the picture that God would want your vote to be more nuanced.
As a Conservative it is particularly annoying that Mr. Wallis presents a picture that, considering the issues above, would help you eliminate either party. But I'm used to people in today's world presenting this false picture of Conservatism. However, his second mistake is much more alarming because it is a misrepresentation of Scripture.
We all know the story of the rich man's conversation with Jesus, but let's review a bit:
"Good teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?"
"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good--except God alone. You know the commandments: 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, do not defraud, honor your father and mother.'
"Teacher," he declared, "all these I have kept since I was a boy."
Jesus looked at him and loved him. "One thing you lack," he said. "Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."
At this the man's face fell. He went away sad, because he had great wealth.
Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, "How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!"
This account is powerful both in what is says and what it does NOT say.
What it says: When Jesus was approached by the rich man He told him what he, the rich man, had to do to gain eternal life. Jesus challenged him personally. The challenge was to give away all his possessions, because Jesus knew he held them dear.
What it does NOT say: After his exchange with the rich man, Jesus lamented to His disciples how difficult it is for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God, but Jesus did NOT say "Ok Matthew, he obviously won't give away his wealth, but the poor still need assistance. So we need to take it from him. Since you're a tax collector, put a levy on this guy's earnings so we can pay for food for the poor." Jesus' instruction was to the rich man and involved what the rich man should do. Not what others should do to the rich man.
American Democrats get this all wrong, as does Jim Wallis. They confuse what Jesus is saying. They miss that God is calling us individually to provide for the poor. Instead they believe they can accomplish the same thing if we tax other people to provide for the poor. Somehow, taxing others makes them feel morally superior to those who are giving their own wealth away to the poor. In fact, if it were an American Democrat in this exchange instead of the rich man, it would have gone something like this:
"Good teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?"
"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good--except God alone.
You know the commandments: 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, do not defraud, honor your father and mother.'
"Teacher," he declared, "all these I have kept since I was a boy."
Jesus looked at him and loved him. "One thing you lack," he said. "Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."
At this the Democrat's face fell for he had great wealth. But he had an idea.
"Teacher, I have wealth to be sure, but my neighbor has even greater wealth. I will petition Caesar to tax the wealthier-than-me to provide food and clothing to the poor. And at this, I will enter heaven."
The modern American Democrat does not advocate selling their possessions to give to the poor. Instead, they vote to sell someone else's possession to give to the poor in order to make things more 'fair'. They ask the rich to 'pay a little bit more', to quote the President. And then they feel morally superior in doing so! (A great illustration of this is here) Let us be perfectly clear about this: Nowhere in God's Book does it say this is praiseworthy. In Matthew 25:40 Jesus says "Whatever you did to the least of these, you did to me(emphasis mine)." That passage does not read, "Whatever you voted to have done to the least of these, you voted to have done to me." Christ is not interested in what the majority forces the minority to do. Jesus is interested only in your heart, on a personal level. If you vote to take away from one person to give to another, you're doing that for reasons that are extra-Biblical.
In some respects the American Democrat's answer to this issue is worse than the rich man. Not only is he unwilling to give up his possessions, but he is willing to steal from his neighbor to fulfill the same obligation. And after stealing from his neighbor he believes himself morally superior to his conservative brethren because he was willing to 'provide for the poor' while his conservative brother was, in his view, not willing.
Conservatives are not angels in this example. There are plenty of Conservatives who are also unwilling to give their own treasure to the benefit of others. But Jim Wallis, among others, would seek to convince the Christian Democrat they should feel comfortable balancing their moral "superior" position of taxing other people's wealth to provide for the poor with voting to continue to allow the killing of innocent children. Jesus never preached this message. Instead He told us to sell our 4,000 sq ft home, buy a 2,000 sq ft home, and give the rest to the poor. He is telling me to stop buying so many movies, and devote those savings to the poor, the orphan, or the widow.
The option Jim Wallis' presents is not Biblical. It is incorrect, and by it Christian voters have been convinced that they have evolved beyond 'single issue voting'. Convinced that they are among the special breed of Christian voter who has transcended the abortion issue. That they can vote for a candidate who is for partial birth abortion, as long as he is also for taking from the rich to give to the poor. That they can vote for a candidate who is against providing care for viable babies in the event of a botched abortion, as long as he is for Green Energy.
An estimated 6.4 million Evangelicals voted for President Obama in the past election. The President won approx 50% of the Catholic vote. Yet once you get past the politically divisive, imaginary characterization that Conservatives hate women, hate the poor, hate homosexuals, hate immigrants and hate minorities, it wasn't difficult to identify the candidate who best exemplified Christian values. There was only one candidate who is against restricting partial birth abortion; one candidate whose party is against restricting gender-selective abortion; one candidate who referred to babies as a 'fetus...outside of the womb; one candidate who is against providing life-saving care to babies born alive after a botched abortion; only one candidate who was endorsed by Cuba, Russia, and the President of Iran (who wants to kill Jews and Christians); one candidate who released an e-card advising women to vote as if their 'lady parts depend on it'; one candidate who supports gay marriage; one candidate who supports Planned Parenthood which not only advocates for abortion but advocates for a sexual lifestyle antithetical to Biblical teaching; one candidate who advocates taking from one citizen to give to another; and only one candidate who aired an ad comparing voting for him to losing your virginity.
Mitt Romney is not Jesus. But the contrast between him and Mr. Obama was and is obvious. None of those things above reflect anything having to do with Christian values. Which makes the proliferation of Christians who voted for him particularly disappointing.
Jesus is not a Republican, nor is He a Democrat. He didn't advocate that we get our government to provide for the poor, He asked us to. He is Jesus, Lord of All, our Savior and Hope. Mr. Wallis is correct in advocating that those of us who follow Christ shed our allegiance to political parties, that we look at the men or women running and ask "Who best reflects the values I believe in?" And that after our vote, we come back together as one body.
And re-focus our attention on the One who saved us.
No comments:
Post a Comment