Differences of opinion, sometimes sharp differences, are inherent in democratic dialog. But today many people are incredulous that half of the country voted differently than they did. This seems to have gone quite a bit beyond political disagreements about principles and policy. Both sides in the recent campaign have declared that they have dramatically different visions for the country. Both sides describe the other in caricatures that evoke fear and revulsion that are then easy to dismiss without grasping what the other side is actually proposing. A number of analysts have gone even further suggesting people in the US are living in two radically contrasting, disconnected realities.
I am inclined to agree with that. In fact, I suggest that the incongruity between these realities is so great that debate, dialog, even communication between them has become virtually impossible. Even when they use the same words and symbols, refer to the same current and historical events, invoke the same heroes they not only mean different things, they cannot comprehend each other. Identifiers that each cherishes for itself, such as conservative and liberal, are used as curse words by the other side.
This incredulity seems particularly acute among those of us who consider our primary personal identity to be those who trust, love and follow Jesus. Over and over through the last 6 years or more, I’ve heard, “As a Christian, how could you possibly vote for someone who … ?” Fill in your own issue. I am purposely not going to explore any of those issues I have heard associated with that question as it would only distract from what I think is even more important, exploring a constructive path for those of us who follow Jesus.
Western culture operates with the polarities of either-or thinking that sometimes is explained as a spectrum or continuum. Conservative - liberal, with moderate as a tension escape. Democrat - Republican, with Independent as a tension escape. The mutually exclusive, non-overlapping competing realities that have emerged more recently seem to be pushing the continuum toward obsolescence. Only the polar extremes are invoked. Our society exerts excessive pressure to define our Christian faith in terms of the polarity or at least the continuum. This seems to grotesquely distort my relationship with Jesus and my fellowship with other Christians. When we who identify ourselves with Jesus submit to this pressure, I believe we are letting the world squeeze us into its mold (as J. B. Phillips put it so aptly in his paraphrase of Romans 12:1).
I believe that a viable escape from this trap can be found in the history of those who have gone before us in the church, the community of those who have followed Jesus through the centuries. I am convinced that rejecting polarities and continuum thinking will not only be healthy for the Church but has a real potential offering relief to those in the society who would also like to escape this cage.
For the Church’s first three centuries, Jesus’ disciples were marginalized and outside the power structures of the Roman Empire. Their influence was by lifestyle and moral suasion, not political or military power. At times they were tolerated, even admired, and at times slandered and persecuted. Apologists argued that Christians were good citizens and should be legally accepted and protected in the Roman Empire. However, they would neither have imagined nor advocated making Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire. For the Emperor Constantine to adopt his peculiar version of Christianity as the religion of military conquest and empire expansion would have been unthinkable. (My apologies to my Eastern Orthodox spiritual kin for understanding Constantine differently than you do) Yet, from that grew the Holy Roman Empire, Christendom, the state and church alliances of Europe, and the generic, quasi Christian cultural consensus of the US.
The spiritual decline of the Church was precipitous and almost instantaneous when being Roman and Christian became almost interchangeable. Many who were hungry for spiritual vitality retreated to desert communities in the third and fourth centuries. We know their writings as the Desert Fathers and Mothers which continue to reverberate in our time. In the sixth century, Benedict was so repulsed by the corruption and spiritual laxity of Church leaders in Rome, he went on a three year pilgrimage, and emerged convinced God had called him to start a movement of spiritual renewal that shaped monasticism and the Church and continues as the Benedictine movement today. As Anabaptist movements developed in the time of the Protestant Reformation, they became convinced that spiritual integrity mandated opting out of what they saw as an unholy alliance of Church with state and culture.
I am convinced that we can learn from the pre-Constantinian Church, the monastic movements, and Anabaptists how we who trust, love, and follow Jesus can thrive in our deeply divided society, even having the influence of salt and light that Jesus spoke of in the Sermon on the Mount. We are a totally different alternative reality to the cultural model of polarity and continuum. While living as good citizens of whatever society we are in, we recognize that our loyalty and allegiance is not to current, transient political organizations or countries. We are citizens of the eternal Reign and Kingdom of God. We begin living that reality and building our present daily lives and relationships around the teaching and life of Jesus. Thus, even when a society welcomes us, we who follow Jesus will always be countercultural.
This will always be challenging, not only because the dominant culture will pressure us to conform to their ways, but among ourselves, we will not always have complete clarity of vision or agreement about how to live this out in society's ever-changing landscape. As much as we respect and learn from those who came before us, we recognize they didn’t always get it right or agree on the approach to the challenges they faced. Some monastics and Anabaptist have chosen to opt out of public life almost entirely, seeking pure focus in their communities. Sometimes with an expectation that the alternative would be attractive to those who were spiritually hungry around them. Other monastics and Anabaptist have sought to engage the culture constructively, even though they know the society will try to define them in its own terms and co-opt them into their alliances and causes.
We have to insist that our identity as those who trust, love, and follow Jesus is not only primary but singular and exclusive. I am not a Christian Republican or a Christian Democrat. I am a Christian, which means I believe Jesus has something confrontational and affirming to say to those who identify themselves as Democrats, Republicans, or even Americans. I remember a concept Francis Schaeffer spoke about back in the 1970s: not allies but co-belligerents. I readily acknowledge reluctance to cite him given the retrospective of 50 years, and as one of Anabaptist non-violent conviction, I have reservations about the image of co-belligerents. What I do find helpful, however, is the concept that as a disciple of Jesus I may agree and even work on a specific issue with some people I dramatically disagree with on another issue. I must never allow my concern with a particular issue obscure my primary and total identification with Jesus. I must also reject the false dichotomy of either-or thinking, that if I take a position on one thing that assumes what I believe about other things. If I care about this (fill in the blank), then I must not care about that (fill in the blank). Conversely, if I care about this (fill in the blank), then I must also care about that (fill in the blank).
Perhaps even more challenging about living as citizens of Jesus’ alternate reality, is that we who follow Jesus are limited in our perspectives and will not always agree with each other. That reality goes all the way back to the New Testament Church. Romans 14 addressed this in some detail in terms of disagreements on how those who were following Jesus responded both to Jewish laws and customs and to the practices of their Pagan neighbors. Rather than saying they all had to agree on one answer, verse 14 says, “Let all be fully convinced in their own minds.” Of course, once I become fully convinced in my own mind, I start to think everyone should be similarly convinced. But the chapter is clear that disagreements will persist and instructs us to relate to each other with respect and love. Similarly, what one of us considers to be a debatable matter, someone else is fully convinced is clear in Scripture and not debatable. Yet the point of the passage is to accept and not judge each other.
Particularly in our time of such intense polarization, this is difficult indeed, probably impossible without the working of the Holy Spirit among us. When it comes to voting, we must prayerfully discern how to cast a vote for a candidate or party that does not fully reflect our values as disciples of Jesus. This is very different from “voting for the lesser of two evils.” I know I seek for my votes to be positive expressions, recognizing that others who trust, love, and follow Jesus believe their different vote is also a positive statement as a positive expression of their faith. I do, however, believe that declaring the way I vote is the only legitimate Christian vote is not only dangerous and divisive, but reveals a spiritual pride that does not recognize my finite, fallible limitations.
I am not at all suggesting that we do not have objective theological, moral, and spiritual realities to pursue, only that we examine them together in good faith, respecting the integrity of those with whom we disagree. I propose that sincere dialog between followers of Jesus who disagree (politically and in other ways) should not be about condemnation or judgment (“You can’t be a Christian if you …”) but about learning from each other and challenging each other to keep learning and growing as we walk with Jesus. I believe we will be more convincing to those with whom we disagree if we listen to them respectfully and seek to truly understand how they pursue their Christian discipleship in ways differently than we do.
In the case of the 2020 US Presidential election, in my personal circle are many whose Christian faith and discipleship I recognize and respect, plenty who identify themselves as evangelical, who voted for Donald Trump and who voted for Joe Biden. (I find the idea of an evangelical voting bloc to be quite repulsive.) Several of them overtly expressed they considered their vote to be an expression as disciples of Jesus. Before you react with “How could they!” I will push the envelope one step further. Based on their personal expressions and regular, visible participation in Christian faith communities, I consider both Joe Biden and Mike Pence to be my spiritual kin in Christ, though they both live out both their faith and their politics quite differently than I do.
Parenthetically, I do want to add that I cannot make that affirmation about Donald Trump or Kamala Harris. I do not know what is in their hearts or how they relate to God, but I have not heard personal statements of faith from either of them, nor has their participation in a community of faith been publicly apparent. I know Donald Trump recently changed his official religious identification from Presbyterian to Non-Denominational Christian. Having served both Presbyterian and non-denominational congregations in the course of my pastoral career, I know that both labels cover a wide variety. I will not attempt to interpret this except that it doesn’t strike me as a personal expression of faith. I do know that some who have contact with him have asserted they think he has Christian faith. With her ancestry in India and Jamaica, Kamala Harris reflects a much broader background yet. My only comment here is that I affirm the US Constitution that there should be no religious test for holding public office. My reasons for that are not just political but having to do with protecting the integrity of faith from being diluted by superficial, cultural expectations. For me saying “I believe in God,” or even “I believe in Jesus,” is not at all the same as “I trust, love, and follow Jesus.”
Given how evenly divided the vote in this election was, we are not likely to see any respite from the animosity and tensions between people in the alternate, polarized realities. Rather, I expect activists for both competing visions for the country are going to redouble their efforts to gain the upper hand, by power and maybe even force as the future unfolds. I believe this is both a trap for those of us who trust, love, and follow Jesus to avoid, as well as an opportunity to point our society to another way to live. I am not at all suggesting that the population of the US will be transformed in total to Jesus, but that we can become an attractive alternative for those who want to escape the trap of no-compromise political polarization, and that we can demonstrate the respectful dialog is not only possible but constructive and healthy.
As I wrap up, I readily acknowledge that my pre-Constantinian, monastic, Anabaptist thinking is not, and probably will not, be widely accepted or even understood. I have no illusions that this essay will be widely circulated or used as a catalyst for how we who trust, love, and follow Jesus can respond constructively in the days that lie ahead of us for both the Church (meaning “all who follow Jesus, all around the world, yes, we’re the church together” to quote the song) and the country that will almost certainly be contentious. I have written before about my observation that we who identify ourselves as Christians in the US are facing challenges similar to those faced by the Confessing Church in Germany 1934-45. Though singular clarity is likely to elude us, I do believe that those of us whose sole and supreme allegiance is to Jesus are agents of hope in these distressing times. It’s not about an organization or movement as it is an intentional mentality such as Dietrich Bonhoeffer explored in Christ the Center (lectures from 1933 first published in 1960). Our influence as disciples of Jesus will be by lifestyle of love and moral suasion, not political power or force.
I believe Ernest W. Shurtleff got it right in this verse of his 1887 hymn Lead on O King Eternal which repudiates popular battle imagery.
Lead on, O King eternal,
till sin's fierce war shall cease,
and holiness shall whisper
the sweet amen of peace.
For not with swords' loud clashing
or roll of stirring drums
with deeds of love and mercy
the heavenly kingdom comes.
No comments:
Post a Comment