Thursday, May 22, 2003

Christian Certainty

Yesterday I responded to the assertions of The New York Times' Frank Rich and Bill Keller that the Christian right was on the run. Today I'd like to take up another point in Keller's thought-provoking piece: the role of President Bush's Christian faith in his decision-making process.

"Perhaps the most important effect of Mr. Bush's religion is that, for better or for worse, it imparts a profound self-confidence once he has decided on a course of action. This has been most conspicuous since Sept. 11 in the way he has talked about his mission to make the world safe for democracy. Some listeners take it as presumptuous, messianic, even blhtmlhemous. John Green of the University of Akron, a scholar of religion in politics, sees it as a perfectly ordinary way for a religious man to understand a task history has presented him.

"For Bush to conclude that this was God's plan," he said, "is not a whole lot different from a plumber in Akron deciding that God wants him to serve lunch to homeless people."

In a pre-war piece, Gordon Livingston also finds it almost axiomatic that "religious people" possess a certainty about the world and their decisions. For him, this is hardly comforting when the the religious person under consideration is President of the United States:

"Deeply religious people are, by definition, certain that they are right about life's large questions. It is in the nature of religious belief to have complete confidence about the (unprovable) existence of a particular deity and assurance in a specific interpretation of some set of religious writings that purport to reveal God's will...Having identified Saddam Hussein as evil, it only remains to remove him to achieve good. If this seems a simple-minded solution to a complex problem, it's because it is. That's the beauty of dividing the world into two camps: us and the evildoers. All ambiguity and moral qualms evaporate."

Martin Marty in a another pre-war piece, strongly disagrees with Mr. Livingston's understanding of faith. "Self-examination and repentant action" are "critical components of any faith." The Bible, Marty says as he makes a public but most pastoral appeal to our President, presents a more "nuanced" God than the one upon whom Bush seems to call to justify his policies.

The Bible also presents a more complex, and realistic, picture of people of faith. The "profound self-confidence" about which Bill Keller speaks is often not apparent in the words of believers. Instead, there are often anguished questions. "How long, O LORD_," the psalmist cries as he awaits deliverance from the God. "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me_," cries Jesus from the cross as he takes the words of Psalm 22 on his lips.

Those called to leadership by God often suffer great uncertainty about the validity of their call and even whether the presence and guidance of God continues for them. Elijah runs away and hides in a cave uncertain that the Lord will protect him even after his victory on Mt. Carmel. Jeremiah questions God's sense of justice. Peter is moved by a vision to reach out to the Gentile Cornelius but then is uncertain about table fellowship with the uncircumcised until being confronted by Paul.

The image of believers as untroubled by uncertainty as they strive to do God's will is not one drawn from the Bible or the history of the Church. Christians are often left to make choices in this unjust world when they are very unsure of the answer to WWJD ("What Would Jesus Do_"). All they can do is "sin boldly," and rely on the true certainty: the mercy of God. (For an example of a Christian community that emphasizes these htmlects of the life of faith, visit The Center for Progressive Christianity.)

All this is not to deny that there are Christians who fit the descriptions of Keller and Livingston. Part of it is surely due to personality. But some may be the result of a "decision theology" that puts great emphasis on making a personal choice in favor of Jesus and salvation. These "born again" Christians can name the day and hour in which they were saved--saved when they "found" Jesus and "chose" Him. For Christians who emphasize our inability to ever choose God on our own, faith and a relationship with a loving and merciful God is a undeserved gift of grace. For those with an especially crude and self-congratulatory idea of "decision theology," those same things can be the reward for making a wise choice. Having worked out this most important of all issues for themselves, it would hardly be surprising for such individuals to find little of value in the views of unbelievers and even Christians who trace the origin of their faith to infant baptism.

Martin Marty is right when he counsels the President that authentic faith traditions emphasize constant self-examination and repentant action. I would add that those traditions also recognize the hiddeness of God in this fallen world and the uncertainty that believers must cope with as they work out their own "salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who is at work in you, enabling you both to will and to work for his good pleasure."

Obscure Bible verse of the day: Numbers 11:4-15

The rabble among them had a strong craving; and the Israelites also wept again, and said, "If only we had meat to eat! We remember the fish we used to eat in Egypt for nothing, the cucumbers, the melons, the leeks, the onions, and the garlic; but now our strength is dried up, and there is nothing at all but this manna to look at." Now the manna was like coriander seed, and its color was like the color of gum resin. The people went around and gathered it, ground it in mills or beat it in mortars, then boiled it in pots and made cakes of it; and the taste of it was like the taste of cakes baked with oil. When the dew fell on the camp in the night, the manna would fall with it. Moses heard the people weeping throughout their families, all at the entrances of their tents. Then the Lord became very angry, and Moses was displeased. So Moses said to the Lord, "Why have you treated your servant so badly_ Why have I not found favor in your sight, that you lay the burden of all this people on me_ Did I conceive all this people_ Did I give birth to them, that you should say to me, "Carry them in your bosom, as a nurse carries a sucking child,' to the land that you promised on oath to their ancestors_ Where am I to get meat to give to all this people_ For they come weeping to me and say, "Give us meat to eat!' I am not able to carry all this people alone, for they are too heavy for me. If this is the way you are going to treat me, put me to death at once—if I have found favor in your sight—and do not let me see my misery."

Comment

Moses tries to resign in a moment of uncertainty. Any pastors out there ever ask these questions_

Personal Note

Today marks the last entry in the Blog for this week. I very much appreciate the encouragement I've already received. I'm sure less supportive comments will come as the price of the site becoming more widely known. But already I'm seeing progress toward one of therightChristians.org's missions: a community of people I would not otherwise have known is being formed.

Feedback Comment Home

Wednesday, May 21, 2003

Is the Christian Right dying_

Two New York Times columnist have all but written obituaries for the Christian Right this week. Frank Rich, writing about William Bennett on Sunday, declares:

"To say that Mr. Bennett lost all his culture wars as decisively as he lost his $8 million would not be an overstatement."

Bill Keller likens G. W. Bush's relationship with the Christian Right to that of Ronald Reagan--happy to take their money and votes but granting them no real influence or power. Keeler says the CR has been co-opted by the Republican Party:

""As for the enduring notion that Mr. Bush takes his instructions from the organized Christian right, it misses a much more interesting story: as an independent political structure, the Christian right is dying....The interesting story, then, is not that Mr. Bush is a captive of the religious right, but that his people are striving to make the religious right a captive of the Republican Party."

It is true that American culture seems to be moving away from the conservative Christians' ideal. Not all of this is good. Rising divorce rates produce many impoverished single mothers and children. These changes also serve to keep conservative Christians focused on "cultural" issues like abortion, homosexual unions and sex in the media. It has been an important factor in making it possible for those with a reactionary economic agenda to achieve electoral majorities despite the fact that their policies are harmful for the vast majority of Americans. Finally, while the framework of discussion on "cultural" issues keeps moving away from the CR position, the framework for economic issues has moved a long way away from progressive views.

Part of this may be the fault of progressives themselves. We have a tendency, as Lakoff notes, to try persuading with "facts" without placing them in any broader ideological or especially, moral context. We have forgotten that progressive Christians and Jews made powerful moral arguments for civil rights in the 50's and won, often against conservative Christians who acted as apologists for the status quo. Within the current political climate, we are unlikely to succeed without highlighting our moral values and their link with the policies we support.

We may be a little afraid. It will be impossible for progressives to bring their values into the discussion without submitting those same values to examination from within and without. We may be required to make some changes and adjustments ourselves. But in the end, we'll be better for it and so will our nation.

Obscure Bible passage of the day

The land shall not be sold in perpetuity, for the land is mine; with me you are but aliens and tenants. Throughout the land that you hold, you shall provide for the redemption of the land. If anyone of your kin falls into difficulty and sells a piece of property, then the next of kin shall come and redeem what the relative has sold. If the person has no one to redeem it, but then prospers and finds sufficient means to do so, the years since its sale shall be computed and the difference shall be refunded to the person to whom it was sold, and the property shall be returned. But if there are not sufficient means to recover it, what was sold shall remain with the purchaser until the year of jubilee; in the jubilee it shall be released, and the property shall be returned. (NRSV)

Comment

It's been awhile since the Year of the Jubilee here in the U. S. Maybe Tom DeLay is working on a bill to institute it before the next election_

Comment:

This passage isn't completely obscure--the famous "talion principle" of an eye for an eye is found here. The hypothetical circumstance that calls the "talion principle" into play, however, is not well-known. The facts could hardly be more on point for the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. In the first hypthetical, people engage in violence that results unintentionally in battery against a pregnant woman and miscarriage without further harm to the woman. A modified hypothetical is then presented in which there is harm to the pregnant woman (besides the miscarriage) and the talion principle is applied.

This portion of Exodus, which is found just after the Ten Commandments, is known as the Book of the Covenant (See Exodus 24:7). It is comprised of some of what may be the oldest material in the Bible and is itself based upon even older material: the law codes of the Ancient Near East best known in the collection called the Code of Hammurabi which dates from the 18th century BCE. These law codes were most likely scholarly exercises but they are evidence of an effort to substitute a legal system of justice for "self-help." "Self-help" survives today in the world of Tony Soprano where if you kill one of my guys, I kill two of yours. The talion principle and other laws were an attempt to prevent retribution from resulting in a escalating cycle of violence.

The Code of Hammurabi dealt with circumstances in which violence resulted in a miscarriage.

"If an 'awilum' strikes the daughter of an 'awilum' and she miscarries, he shall pay ten shekels of silver for her miscarriage." Code of Hammurabi 209

The "awilum" was a citizen of high status in ancient Babylon in contrast to the lowly "mushkenum" and the enslaved "wardum." The concern is to compensate the father for the loss of his property interest. Neither the daughter nor the fetus had any important status of their own. They were property of the father in this case, presumably because the daughter was not married (in which case she would have been the property of her husband).

The biblical writer, presumably aware of the Hammurabi provision or one similar to it, takes the pregnant woman hypothetical and modifies both the circumstances and outcome. The violence against the pregnant woman (who is married) is now accidental rather than intentional. The result is still money damages instead of the death penalty as it would be for murder (See Exodus 21:12). Rather than the Hammurabi Code's specified sum of ten shekels, compensation is to be determined by the demand of the husband as limited by a judge.

The author of 1 Peter was talking about the Roman Empire in the 1st Century. Surely, the government of Pennsylvania is no more godless or hostile to Christians.

Whatever her original motivations, Ms. Nichol is now a pawn of the Christian Right. Before Pat Robertson and Fox News are through with her, we'll probably learn far more about her and her life than either we or she desire. If she had had a little Gospel-centered pastoral counseling at the outset, she might have retained her job and her privacy. And the cross of Christ might not have been made to appear as if it hung by the link of a necklace.

Obscure Bible passage of the day: Ezekiel 22: 23-29

"The word of the Lord came to me:

Mortal, say to it: You are a land that is not cleansed, not rained upon in the day of indignation. Its princes within it are like a roaring lion tearing the prey; they have devoured human lives; they have taken treasure and precious things; they have made many widows within it. Its priests have done violence to my teaching and have profaned my holy things; they have made no distinction between the holy and the common, neither have they taught the difference between the unclean and the clean, and they have disregarded my sabbaths, so that I am profaned among them. Its officials within it are like wolves tearing the prey, shedding blood, destroying lives to get dishonest gain. Its prophets have smeared whitewash on their behalf, seeing false visions and divining lies for them, saying, "Thus says the Lord God," when the Lord has not spoken. The people of the land have practiced extortion and committed robbery; they have oppressed the poor and needy, and have extorted from the alien without redress." (NRSV)

Comment:

None needed.

Feedback Comment Home

Sunday, May 18, 2003

Immoral Taxes_

The Mission of the Right Christians

"The Right Christians" was founded to serve people of faith who object to the agenda of the Christian Right. Our purposes are fourfold: 1) serve as a source of information about Christianity and politics; 2) provide a voice for those whose faith leads them to different conclusions about political issues than those of the Christian Coalition, etc.; 3) create a Web community for the mutual support of like-minded Christians and those of other faiths; and 4) reach out to those in the Christian community who have begun to question the motives and agenda of the Christian Right.

There is currently no formal membership process for "The Right Christians" but we welcome your comments, encouragement and prayers and invite you to participate by offering your own contribution in the form of opinion pieces, scholarly papers or even Weblogs focused on particular topics within the more general area of Christianity and politics. We would especially appreciate points of view from outside the Christian community, e.g. Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, agnostics, etc.

Home

About the Founder

Allen H. Brill, founder of "The Right Christians", is a private citizen and Christian who wanted to see viewpoints of progressive Christians better represented in the public forum. He provides a Weblog on issues involving Christianity and politics that is updated five times a week.

Rev. Brill is an ordained Lutheran minister educated at Concordia Seminary in St. Louis, MO. He is also a member of the South Carolina Bar with a B.A. degree in Government from Harvard College and a J.D. from the University of Virginia Law School.

Home

About "The Right Christians"

We thank the Rev. Al Sharpton for our name. Confronted by an anti-abortion protester at NARAL's January rally to celebrate the 30th anniversary of Roe V. Wade, Rev. Sharpton responded, "Young lady, it is time for the Christian right to meet the right Christians." Our site is not otherwise connected with the Sharpton campaign and he is not responsible for its content nor we for his campaign. We do appreciate his stating so succinctly what we have been feeling for some time and wish him well.

"The Right Christians" was founded by the Rev. Allen H. Brill and is currently under his direction.

Home

Participate

You are invited to contribute to "The Right Christians" by submitting letters, articles or even a blog on a specific topic. Use the Volunteer Form to get started.

We have some ongoing opportunities to participate:

We would especially like to add the following:

Diverse Sources:

Roman Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists and other religious groups; pastors or former pastors of Evangelical or neo-Pentecostal congregations; academics in the areas of church history or systematics

Experts in the following areas:

contemporary Christian music; the business interests of the Christian Right; "Christian" publishing

Home