During my undergraduate years in college, I served as student coordinator for Campus Crusade for Christ. At the peak of the Vietnam War and political protests, I participated in a faith-based initiative on the campus of the University of California at Berkeley. The campus was in turmoil at that time due to the firing of the college president, Clark Kerr. We had many speakers involved in our spiritual thrust, including the Reverend Billy Graham. The week-long theme was, “Jesus, the Revolutionary.” I was taken back by the interest that many students demonstrated as they carried signs reading, “Jesus Yes, Christianity No.” The students were open to the teachings of Jesus but were less enthusiastic and rejected many of the values associated with a traditional Christian world-view.
As I conversed with many Berkeley students, I found them to be spiritually open-minded, thoughtful and reflective. These students shared an ideological perspective that was compatible with my own. I found the students to be more spiritually mature than those from the Midwestern University where I attended. My own university school-mates were more interested in what fraternity or sorority they would join as opposed to contemplating in-depth issues regarding the meaning of life.
My week-long exposure at Berkeley got me thinking. Was it true that Jesus really was the revolutionary figure of His time? I concluded that if He were present on this earth today, He would be dismayed by the brand of Christianity professed by many who seek to follow in His footsteps.
Jesus’ teachings and lifestyle went against the grain of the religious establishment of His day. As one reads the Gospel accounts, one is struck by the extent to which He contradicted those who held the religious power of His time. When the religious leaders hid behind their scriptural literalness, He rebuked them for missing spiritual insights. When He was challenged about breaking the religious rules, He proclaimed that the rules were made to aid people, not trap them. When the religious power-brokers accused Jesus of hob-knobbing with the whores, He dismissed their insensitivity for neglecting the poor and down-trodden. He accused the religious establishment of criticizing the sins of others while refusing to “see the log in their own eye.” Jesus reminded the Scribes and Pharisees that the Bible was meant to be a scriptural account which would point people to the Lord. It was not meant to be a guidebook used as a pretense to personal piety. In (John 5:39) Jesus said to the religious leaders, “You search the scriptures because you believe they give you eternal life. But the scriptures point to me.” (New-living translation).
Like the religious leaders of Jesus’ time, today’s Christian Right:
1. Displays rigidity in their interpretations of scripture, rejecting any differences in perspective as “going against God’s will.”
2. Pontificates about the obvious “sins of the flesh” such as drinking and sexual indiscretion while ignoring the other more subtle “sins of the spirit” such as pride, greed, envy and jealousy. This convenient diversion tends to take responsibility away from the more egregious sins of the spirit which we all commit.
3. Places more emphasis on a conservative political agenda rather than their religious beliefs. From a religious perspective, Mitt Romney’s beliefs are antithetical to those of the Christian Right. However, his political ideology is compatible with the Christian Right and most of the religious differences will soon be forgotten as he continues his candidacy for President.
4. Demonstrates a sense of false piety and over-spiritualizes reality. The third Biblical commandment indicates that we should “not use the Lord’s name in vain.” This is called blasphemy. Many of the Christian Right are convinced that this is a commandment about swearing. Although swearing is not desirable, this commandment is broader in scope. The context of the commandment refers to using religious language as a pretense to pious behavior. More specifically, the commandment addresses those who incessantly try to impress others with their overbearing religiosity by over-spiritualizing life. This includes chronically over-used verbiage such as, “It’s the Lord’s will” and those who say, “Praise the Lord,” in every other sentence. God’s name is to be revered, not used lightly in a blasphemous manner.
5. Has an immature concept of God. James Fowler, theologian and author, illuminates this issue in his book, Stages of Faith. Those who embrace an infantile faith appear to view God as the “Cop in the sky” who punishes those who are not obedient to His every command. In my opinion there is a difference between child-like faith and childish faith. Cooperating with God is a more mature way of defining our relationship with the Lord.
6. Uses the Bible as a vehicle for defending their position on many subjects. Like the religious establishment of Jesus’ day, the scriptures are interpreted in a preconceived manner to fit the believer’s convictions. By being overly-literal, the translation is lost for practical everyday living.
The way the Christian Right operationalizes its beliefs reminds me of the religious leaders of Jesus’ day. Those beliefs and behaviors are what He challenged the religious establishment to transcend. It was not the “letter of the law,” but the “spirit of the law” that He emphasized. The spirit of the law represents acceptance, tolerance, love, open-mindedness and personal responsibility. This is the spiritual revolution that we students were talking about so many years ago at Berkeley.
James P. Krehbiel, Ed.S., LPC is an author, freelance writer, and nationally certified cognitive-behavioral therapist practicing in Scottsdale, Arizona. Are you in the bubble or have you stepped out? See http://www.booklocker.com/. James can be reached at http://www.krehbielcounseling.com/.
3 comments:
Hi James
Thoughtful post, thanks. One specific comment and then some broader comments.
In your reference to the interest some Christian leaders take in Mitt Romney's candidacy, do you mean to say that Christians should not vote for Mitt solely based on his Mormon faith?
If so, what would your position be on voting for someone who professes to be a member of a Christian denomination, but never goes to church. Or, someone who has grown up in a Christian church but has since left the church, but for political purposes proclaims an affiliation. Or, how about someone who is agnostic or even athiest?
What I am taking away from your comment is that religious practice (not simply professed affiliation) should be a litmus test for candidates for secular public offices. Do you really mean this?
My view is that for secular public offices, we ought not be concerned with the differences in specific points of doctrine, but rather look at the person and the values by which they live their life, and most importantly, how they would govern, and pick the person most in line with our own values (Christian or otherwise).
More broadly, you bring up some interesting points about the revolutionary nature of Christ and what he advocated while on earth. I think, however, that the answer to WWJD in today's political scene is something in between.
Members of the "religious left" often use Christ's example to focus on their issues (e.g. poverty, "social justice").
Christ absolutely helped the poor, sick, and weak during his time on earth. What he role modeled, however, is what we as individuals and as churches ought to do in our communities and neighborhoods.
Christ was explicitly not interested in political power as expressed by governmental structures. You'll remember he was asked about taxes and his famous reply about rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar's.
Paul also admonished us that we are not struggling against temporal, earthly governments, but rather the darkness and evil of Satan.
Translation...don't focus too much on what government is doing. These things are temporary inconveniences in comparison to eternal life with our Savior.
If we think more broadly about the Christian Right's agenda, it is largely trying to make government less intrusive to enable more Christians to live life as they believe, unfettered by government regulation. Consider for example:
- The ability to express Christian beliefs in the public square rather than governmental policies that force a broad swath of the population to supress such expression (e.g. school prayer, student clubs on campus, public displays of Christmas)
- Homeschoolers have fought for rights to educate their children in a way that is consistent with their beliefs for many years, and though it is better today, there are still many instances of overbearing government regulation
- The preservation of the traditional meaning of "Marriage" rather than having it be forcibly re-defined by government to cover many other arrangements that Christians do not believe apply to that term
- The intrusion of the Federal government mandating a right to an abortion vs. allowing legislative processes to play out in local states to decide for themselves the degree of protection they will provide to the most vulnerable in our society
I would propose that each of these issues of the Christian right are actually trying to move the country in the direction of less government intrusion and more self-governance allowing them to live their lives more consistently with their beliefs.
This I think, would be highly consistent with Christ's view of rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar's, but not ceeding an inch more of ground than that to the government.
With respect to some of the afore mentioned "Religious Left" issues of poverty and "social justice," my interpretation of Christ's example is that he role-modeled how we as individual and churches should help the poor, sick, and lost.
I do not, however, believe that Christ's example ought to be extrapolated to our secular government.
This is not to say that the less fortunate among us should not be helped. They absolutely should! The Christian Right's preferred vehicle for this would be through the various ministries of its members, churches, and other affiliated non-profit service organizations in a faith-based context.
We should remember that Christ never healed or helped anybody outside of the context of forgiving their sins and concern for their eternal (not temporal) life.
He told the prostitute not only "neither do I condemn you," but he continues to say "go forth and sin no more."
Christ's example, I believe, tells us that physical needs and spiritual needs go hand in hand. Government cannot address both, nor should it.
The Christian Right perfect? Of course not. But to compare it with the Scribes and Pharisees I think is a bit unfair. What most on the Christian Right frankly want is less intrusion from the government which allow greater freedom to live lives in accordance with their beliefs.
My $0.02. Thanks for writing.
Dear James,
a very thought-provoking post. That said I think you simplfy things a bit too much. Christ didn't criticize the Pharisees during His earthly ministry because they were 'stuck' on the law, but because they were HYPOCRITES.
That's the same charge I generally lay at the feet of the Left, in your country and in mine (Canada). Hypocrisy is the HALLMARK of the Left and it always was. The sad thing, however, is that they can get away with it because they stand for little more than personal/self-realized freedom, which consists of 'doing what you want, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else.'
That's the drugged-out mantra of the 60's Hippie generation and it is still being used today. Because it recognizes no higher power than the 'self' as the ultimate moral guide, it can accept no consequences of mutually condoned behaviour.
The concept of "Sin", then, is relativistic in its understanding. Since the 'self' is the moral guide, as long as what is done is mutually agreed too and ultimately pleasurable and gratifying, it can and should be done.
The true Right/Conservative, on the other hand, has no such notion to fall back on. Since "sin" is clearly defined for us in the Judeo-Christian Scriptures, any violation of that code represents a clear failure of character. Likewise the espousing of such values and the failure to live up to them constantly, adds the onus of hypocrisy upon us as well.
This, I believe, is right and correct. Jesus knew this too and frequently castigated the Pharisees for their FAILURE to apply the standards to themselves as they applied them to others. As guardians of the law and proper behaviour, the onus was on them to show a better example and lead Godly lives, not to force others to do so while they, themselves, could or would not.
Sincere failure to live up to the Law leads one to the understanding of our own weakness and failings and human beings. It creates, or should create, in us a character of mercy and understanding, not hypocrisy. Ultimately it leads to Christ since a poor sinful wretch, having failed to live up to the Law, is forced to confess his sins before the Lord and seek forgiveness; a forgiveness which only the blood of Jesus Christ made possible.
But that doesn't make the Law wrong. It doesn't make the Law any less Holy. Indeed, is shows how perfect the Law of God is for it DOES bring the sincere hearted person to Salvation. As Scripture says, "Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster [to bring us] unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith."(Gal. 3:24).
Thus I glory in the Law, for unless the Law came and showed me how desperately wicked a man I was, I would not then have sought Christ for my redemption. But I also understand my own failings and try, hard as I can, to apply the same message of mercy to those who seek mercy. What I won't do, however, is open the floodgates to every perverted notion and idea (such as 'gay marriage') that the Left does.
Liberality, for me, is the Liberty of living in freedom to serve God, ON HIS TERMS, not mine. When I look into the perfect Law, then, I know God's terms and they are without argument or private interpretation.
You said that "The spirit of the law represents acceptance, tolerance, love, open-mindedness and personal responsibility. This is the spiritual revolution that we students were talking about so many years ago at Berkeley." Indeed, James, it does for the Father of the Law is Love and His commandment is that we love one another as Christ loved us. But HIS law, however, is not something that can be trampled on in the quest to seek it's 'spirit' for the same God also says in 1 Samauel 15:22 "... Hath the LORD [as great] delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey [is] better than sacrifice, [and] to hearken than the fat of rams." Indeed Peter himself said "And we are his witnesses of these things; and [so is] also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him." (Act 5:32).
It is OBEYING the Laws of God that keeps Christians away from the charges of hypocrisy. If I then say that homosexuality is wrong, and I engage in homosexuality, does that make it incumbant upon you to accept that? No, indeed!. It, rather, makes it incumbant upon you to point out my hypocrisy and take me to the Law of God (not 'the spirit of the law' but the ACTUAL LAW) and show me where I failed, that I might repent and be redeemed.
Our failure, as men and Christians to do that, even amongst ourselves, is what leaves us open to legitimate charges of hypocrisy. If we then criticise the Left for their sins, we must be sure we do not engage in thems ourselves. If we do, we leave ourselves open to charges of being "Pharisees" and RIGHTLY SO I must say.
Mercy and love is not the sole property of the Left and we must not allow it to become that. We must, indeed, rescue both those terms from their hands and restore them to the hand of God from which they came. If we don't, they will continually be used as a license to immorality and lever upon which people from gays, to pedophiles (ie. NAMBLA), to all those who practice those things which God despises.
This is not 'liberty' but tyranny and bondage to debauchery. It opens the door to the worst in our societies, causing more legislation and thus LESS freedom. It is the Soviet system perfected and perpetuated; the Left triumphant at last.
The only true liberty, then, is one based on a moral standard apart from the 'self' and that standard is God's. As Paul says in Galatians 5:1 "Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage." That 'bondage' is sinfulness and all that is attendent to it. Those who practice it serve their master, the devil, as Peter warned about: "While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage." (2 Peter 2:19).
Take care.
Sincerely,
Steven Eleftheriadis.
Hi James - Well structured and a very thought provoking post. I have to come up with my comments over the christainty issues you have raised.
Point number 6 - Sorry, Bible cannot be used as a defensive vehicle
Post a Comment