The Christian Right has been a very powerful bloc in the national political scene for the better part of 40 years. The history of the modern evangelical movement is often seen as starting in the 1970s. Authors have also linked this movement to the fundamentalists, prohibitionists, and segregationists from the 1920s through the 1960s. Regardless of the various pathways by which this movement came to power, the underlying tenets of this political force is a belief that America is a Christian nation being secularized and it is the duty of the followers of Christ to take the country back to its Christian roots - to “take America back for Christ” so to speak.
Republican political strategiests of the 1970s realized that by taking stronger positions on civil issues of importance to the Christian voters (i.e prayer in school, abortion, feminism, counter-culture, etc.), they could take political power in the South, which had historically been a Democrat stronghold. The story of the marriage between the GOP and Christianity is certainly an interesting and multifaceted one. However, by the 1980s the Evangelical movement was firmly established in the GOP and to this day remains a significant force in the political landscape of the right. In short, the GOP found a powerful voting constituency and the evangelicals found a political vehicle for their Christian message and beliefs. For an excellent history on this subject, read “God’s Own Party: The Making of the Christian Right” by Daniel K. Williams.
But, what if the idea of “taking America back for Christ” is inherently ill-founded? What if America is not by definition a Christian nation, or at least not destined to be a Christian nation that needs taking back by the followers of Christ? My thesis is that Christ’s mission for His people is not to take America back for Christ through the use of political power, but to be a revolutionary force for reclaiming one’s individual life for good through faith, repentance, and living a Christian life regardless of the powers in the seat of government. Additionally, I posit that the Christian alignment with political powers introduces a corrupting influence into the lived experience of religious belief and religious practice that directly contradicts Christ’s teachings. These contradictions are seen specifically by focusing on political over internal battles, embracing corrupt leaders, and apathy for the poor.
A Focus on Political over Internal Battles
As outlined above, the evangelical’s political mission has been to take America back for Christ. However, over time, the aims of the Christian right have not been particularly successful. Somehow, despite the power of the GOP and the Evangelical movement, the country is more secular, more diverse, generally more embracing of abortion, legal marriage in the LGBTQ community, legalization of drugs, equal rights, etc. One might surmise that this failure to affect social change on a large scale would diminish the strength and urgency of this movement, but it has not.
The reasons for this are found in the doctrine and the holy writ itself. Christ himself taught that the world hated Him first and that if the world hates His followers, that is taken as a sign they are on the right track (John 15:18 & 19). Paul said, “we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.” These scriptures have been a rallying cry for Christians to see the corruption in government leaders or institutions - certainly these scriptures have been used as a condemnation of those who take more secular opinions and positions in the public square.
Thus, the political failure of the Christian right and GOP on social issues doesn’t weaken the power of the movement, but gives it strength as it legitimizes itself as true followers of Christ fighting against the world (aka the demonic influences in the world) that has and always will hate Christians. This sentiment is seen in action when Christians make the case (as they are wont to do) that they are hated, discriminated against, and that their religious freedoms are under attack. While some of this may be true and there is certainly a long and gruesome history of Christians being murdered for their beliefs, such has not been the case in the United States on any kind of grand scale at all. In fact, often it has been the opposite, that Christians (mostly White Christians) have perpetrated horrific actions upon the unbelieving, the supposed unworthy, or the sub-human.
An additional nasty by-product of this religious-political worldview, particularly potent due to aligning with a single political party in a two-party system, is the demonization of the other. Modern day Democrats are viewed by Evangelical Republicans as immoral, un-Christian, and possibly satanic. There are many who believe that one cannot be a “good Christian” and be a “Democrat.” The end result of this type of thinking is the creation of a holy war with Republicans on one side and Democrats or any other institution who is not on board with the movement on the other side. Indeed evidence of this mindset and behavior supportive of a holy war was displayed by the rioters and terrorists on January 6 at the US Capitol.
By focusing so much attention on this holy war against the political left, the focus of the Christian right becomes on warfare against a tangible, incarnate other instead of what Christ really taught us to fight against - the forces of sin. Sin is found all around us - yes, in high places in both political parties, but also in our own hearts and souls. By demonizing the left, the focus becomes winning an outward war at all costs (even through hypocrisy, corruption, and yes, violence) instead of focusing on one’s own sinfulness and rooting that out through repentance.
Corrupt Leaders
Lord Acton is well known for the following statement he made to an Anglican bishop, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” This corrupting influence of power is not exclusive to the political right, but is present in all people in all parties everywhere. People have mused at how the religious right could accept various of their political leaders. Recent examples include Ronald Reagan (who was divorced) and Donald Trump (twice divorced and self-admitted sexual abuser of women). The question goes, how can religious people accept a leader of such questionable moral fiber when their central political message is about social and moral issues? This is a fair question, but the answer often ends up being something along the lines of, “I don’t love his personal actions, but I support his policy (i.e. social issues that align with mainline Christian belief).” Others also have stated that God is a forgiver of sins and that people can change, thus any Republican leader with questionable moral character can be viewed as a reformed sinner, just like all of us. But, really what it comes down to mostly is the idea and belief that the World and sinfulness will win if the Democrats win. Thus, all manner of evil can and will be excused as long as the social issues are being fought for.
Again, excusing questionable, unethical, and even illegal personal and political actions by representatives and leaders is rampant across the political spectrum; however, this essay is discussing the intersection of Christianity and its alignment with one political party to further the influence of Christian principles and belief. Because of this, Christian beliefs and morals are an important ruler by which to judge this religious movement within the GOP.
It is interesting that some of Christ’s biggest rebukes were saved for the ultra-religious Pharisees. In Matthew 23 Christ calls out their many acts of hypocrisy. “Woe unto you...hypocrites! For ye pay tithes … and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel. … ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.”
Because hypocrisy and tribalism is endemic to politics (unfortunately) and the religious right has cast its lot with a political party, the corrupting influence of partisanship and hypocrisy has been exposed within the Evangelical right. The most recent presidential administration ran on a slogan of “drain the swamp” and certainly there is not a more murky swamp than Washington DC; however, instead of draining the swamp, the swamp was mostly replaced with muck of a different ilk. Consider Steve Bannon who was arrested for stealing money from fundraisers to build the border wall. There are many others like him such as Michael Flynn, Michael Cohen, etc. Donald Trump himself is the center of multiple controversies and corruption scandals. However, because his policy is, at least in word, in line with social issues of importance to Evangelicalism, any other corrupt actions are forgiven, ignored, downplayed, excused. Additionally, because of the demonization of the left, the Democrats are often blamed as the real instigators and perpetrators of right wing corruption through claims of witch hunting, what-about-ist rhetoric, or conspiracy theory - what Christ might call straining at a gnat while swallowing a camel. While there are certainly examples of hypocrisy and corruption all across the political spectrum, does it not behoove the self-proclaimed followers of Christ to take Him at His word and spurn corruption and hypocrisy?
Apathy for the Poor
The marriage of the GOP with the Christian right also happened at a time during which anti-communism was at a fever pitch in the Republican party. The marriage of these two groups also included combining the virtues of freedom and Capitalism (as opposed to the evils of socialism and Communism) with traditional Christian social beliefs. Thus, freedom and capitalism became as close to Christian beliefs as possible without actually being outlined in holy writ.
Interestingly, Capitalism likely may have had its genesis in protestant belief and work ethic. The term Protestant Ethic was first coined by German philosopher Max Weber who posited that Protestant ethics and values, along with Calvinist doctrines such as predestination and asceticism led to capitalism. While this is a simplistic view and explanation here, some beliefs that have grown out of the Protestant Ethic include meritocracy, but with a divine overture - God blesses the righteous with wealth and material goods. Thus, wealth is a sign of God’s approval and blessing. Poverty is a sign of God’s displeasure and is deserved. Thus, the poor need to work harder, be smarter, and possibly repent of unrepented sins. We have all seen examples of this - just turn on the television and find a local televangelist.
While the con-artist televangelist is an extreme example, a more pernicious aspect of this belief is refusing to help the poor through charitable giving, believing that social programs intended to help the poor are somehow socialist and therefore evil by default, or telling ourselves that the poor do not deserve help because they somehow have brought the poverty onto themselves. There is a definite push and pull between helping through social programs and creating dependency and certainly there is going too far in terms of social programming. However, it bears considering (especially in light of Christ’s example and teaching about the poor) that Christian Republicans consider which side of that spectrum they may be on personally and as a political movement. Note to the reader here: The author also struggles with these questions and continues to work on how to help the poor and follow Christ’s example in this way.
On a macro level, the GOP fiscal policies affecting the poor, particularly enriching rich corporations through tax cuts while not funding social programs intended to help the less fortunate, are generally accepted by Evangelical Christians because it falls in line with the belief that the poor are responsible for their plight and need to pull themselves up because the other option is a dangerous march toward socialism and government control. Another oft cited talking point about continued tax breaks for rich corporations is that money will “trickle down”, “create jobs”, or go toward increased wages for workers. There is some truth to this, and as a society we do not want to overly tax entrepreneurs and stunt innovation. But, some recent research seen here and summarized here has shown that the idea of “trickle down economics” is generally not accurate - it doesn’t trickle down but rather tax cuts for the rich only serve to further enrich the already wealthy.
There are certainly evils associated with Communism and socialism and virtues associated with freedom and free enterprise. For instance, capitalism has been responsible for pulling many out of poverty (an absolute virtue) and we are all familiar with the evils perpetrated in Communist China, the Soviet Union, and North Korea. However, Capitalism in and of itself is not absolutely moral. It is an economic system that when unregulated and taken to extreme absolutely continues to enrich the most wealthy and the majority of the poor continue to be stuck there. Capitalism allows for the amassing of humongous fortunes while other hard working individuals languish in poverty, sometimes working multiple jobs.
Christ had very strong teachings for the rich and powerful. Consider some of the following:
“Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth…” (Matthew 6:19).
The parable of the rich man and Lazarus in which the rich man who refused to offer succor to the poor was cast into hell (Luke 16: 19-31).
“How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God… How hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God!… It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God” (Mark 10: 23-25).
Christ inviting the rich young man to sell all he has, give it to the poor, and follow Christ (Luke 18: 18-23; Matthew 19: 16-22).
These scriptures fly in the face of the religious beliefs about wealth based on the Protestant Ethic. However, Republican fiscal policy based on free-market capitalism, “trickle-down economics”, and stringently against any form of social programming has been mixed with Evangelical belief about riches based on the Protestant Ethic. This can allow Christians to feel justified in their riches, to see their riches as a sign of God’s blessings, and to justify the denial of helping the "undeserving" poorer class on a personal and macro level. This is an inherently un-Christian belief system. In fact, it is a perversion of Christ’s teachings about riches and the poor.
"My Kingdom is Not of this World"
Jesus Christ lived as a Jew during a time when Jews were a dominated nation by the Roman Empire. The Jews were, in fact, looking for a Messiah that would free them from their Roman rulers, to lead them out of slavery as ancient Moses led the Israelites out of Egypt. What Jesus Christ offered to the people was certainly not that kind of salvation. He taught, “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.” One would be hard pressed to find a less politically defiant statement, particularly for the one claiming to be Messiah.
During Christ’s trial and just prior to his crucifixion, Pilate asked Jesus if he is a king. Christ replies, “My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.” Christ realized that His mission required His sacrifice and death - hence, he didn’t want his followers to fight because he was willfully laying down his life.
In this act of willful sacrifice, Christ has given us an example of non-violence that was repeated again and again in his teachings, even in the face of oppressive government. After Christ’s suffering in the garden of Gethsemane, He and his followers are approached by Judas and officials of the Jewish rulers. One of Christ’s followers attacks and cuts off the high priest’s servant’s ear. Christ stops the violence and heals the man’s ear (Luke 22: 50 & 51). Christ taught his followers to turn the other cheek (Matthew 5: 39) and “pray for them that despitefully use you” (Luke 6: 28).
Very rarely does Jesus Christ take an aggressive stance or discuss aggression. The two examples that come to mind are the cleansing of the temple from the money changers and his discussion that his mission is to bring a sword that could possibly separate father from son, mother from daughter. However, neither of these examples have to do with uprising against an oppressive or secular government. The first example, the cleansing of the temple, is a powerful reminder of the need to keep the spiritual free of from the corruption of the world - thus Christ’s aggressive act was to keep worldly forces out of the church. The next example is mostly symbolic in that the teachings of Christ have over generations separated family members as some have chosen Christ’s path while others have not. The canon is absent of references to Christ encouraging the use of aggression or using worldly (i.e. political) forces to strengthen His message.
There is also a lesson in Christ’s answer to Pilate for us now. Christ’s kingdom is not of this world; it is not defined by or encapsulated inside of a worldly political kingdom or party. Taken in this light, Paul’s words are given more direction - the principalities, powers, rulers of darkness in the world, and spiritual wickedness in high places are taken out of the sphere of a two-party system and applicable to all people everywhere. There are principalities and powers in government (all parties) that are corrupt. There are rulers of darkness not just in the seat of government, but in our own heart and in our neighborhoods because of sin. We are to fight against all unrighteousness wherever we find it. Christ’s message was not to create a political party in his own image and exact political power to influence the populace regarding social issues, but to take his teachings into our hearts and live in accord with the tenets of God’s love and to choose to live God’s law through free will. The central message of Christ’s gospel is the following: Christ saves us from sin and death through love. We are to love God and love others. Politics are inherently divisive, the gospel of Christ should be inherently inclusive.
Conclusion
The American Christian political movement, often referred to as Evangelicalism, that started in the early 20th century has a central belief that America is a Christian nation under attack by secular and demonic forces and needs to be taken back for Christ. The Christian Right and the Republican party formed a union that solidified in the 1970s and 1980s leading to a very powerful political force. Despite that power, the aims of the religious right have not been realized. Instead and unfortunately the evangelical movement has become corrupt itself by adopting beliefs that are antithetical to the teachings of Christ such as mixing the political and the spiritual and engaging in political holy war, following corrupt leaders, and apathy for the plight of the poor.
There is a famous Biblical story about Esau, the son of Isaac, who sold his birthright (his inheritance and possibly his spiritual standing with God) for a mess of pottage (or bowl of lentil soup) because he felt like his immediate hunger was more important than some far-off inheritance that he couldn’t now realize. In many ways, the Evangelical movement has sold its soul (its intention to follow Christ) to the GOP for a mess of political pottage and corrupted itself in the process.
Comments
Post a Comment