Wednesday, May 10, 2006
Andrew Sullivan - Time for a War on Christianists?
I find it best to let so many attacks against Christians go right out the window. People have obviously had bad experiences with particular Christians or churches, and thus have pain that motivates their comments. But sometimes there needs to be a response.
Andrew Sullivan, who as I understand him is a Christian, gay, and a liberal, has decided to attack millions of American Christians (and at least on the issue of gay marriage, billions worldwide), because their faith motivates their voting patterns.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1191826,00.html
Now, I have many concerns regarding the Christian Right, even though I am both an Evangelical Christian and a political conservative. When Evangelicals merely accept any politician’s words and actions because of his label, that is danger (this is what has made African-American politics the sad joke it is today…the Democrats throw them a bone with words and then enact policies or defeat policies that would actually help them).
The Christian Right has at times embraced some bad people and at times have tried to turn particular issues (tax cuts) into religious crusades. This is not good overall. But Sullivan seems to be bothered by the very idea of people’s votes being influenced by their faith. So, my lobbying my Congressman for good policies to help the overseas poor (which I have done)…well that is evil and wrong, right? Must be according to Sullivan, since it is the same faith that motivates my opposition to gay marriage (alone with, in both cases, sound logic and history).
Sullivan takes the low road when he calls such people “Christianists,” a clear attempt to link the Christian Right to Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and the myriad other groups attempting to implement Sharia Law from Seattle to Auckland. “See, these Christian Right people want teenage moms hung, gays crushed by stones, and women covered from head to toe. Their support of pro-life laws are clearly just a clever ruse.” I assume, given this logic, that it is okay to call those who support policies of death on the Left “Khemer Democrats” or “Gulagcrats”? Come on Andrew, this is a cheap rhetorical device designed to instill fear and hatred of people who are not trying to take the world back to the 8th or even the 1st century A.D.
Lets think about Andrew’s argument. Apparently, he wants people of faith to view the calling of their faith as merely intellectual, and not having any requirement in the world. This, as readers of this blog know from other things I have written, is Gnosticism. It is the separating out of the “faith realm” from the “material realm.” See, I can be a great Christian and vote for policies that totally are in violation of God’s character because what happens on the earth is irrelevant. Andrew quotes the passage from the Gospel of John where Jesus tells Pilate, “My kingdom is not of this world.” This does not mean that Rome has nothing to fear from Jesus. It means that Rome has nothing to fear militarily from Jesus (in contradistinction to the Islamicists). Rome will be judged according to the character of God. This is the whole point of Jesus’ return to this world in the 2nd Coming. Andrew’s interpretation of this passage has unfortunately undergirded Christian acquiescence to all sorts of evil – from child labour, to slavery, to environmental degradation. I must assume that Andrew didn’t have a problem with Christian faith motivating those electoral efforts to overturn these hideous practices.
Andrew’s “Christianists” is the latest in a thinly veiled attempt to point to people of faith who think their beliefs actually make a difference in the world are somehow dangerous. I was not a Christian when the movie version of A Handmaid’s Tale came out. I went to it and, even not being a Christian, saw it as the most disingenuous attack on Christians.
At the same time, Christian must be careful to realize that this country, and no country on earth, is a theocracy. Such biblical commands to kill particular violators of the law were not practiced even by Israel when it was not a theocracy. And of course, Jesus relativizes the capital punishment elements when he points out that such crimes, while deserving death, are not punishable because there are no non-sinners to execute the guilty (this stands in stark contrast to Sharia law Andrew…you might want to go back to John 8 on your way to John 18).
The reality is that every law, no matter how small or how big, is undergirded by some moral philosophy. Speed limits are set because we value life over death, safety over danger. Why? Laws against littering exist because we value clean and beautiful over hideous and destroyed. So, lets not play the game of “getting religion out of politics/law” as if in doing so we would not end up in anarchy Andrew. In point of fact the great levels of individual freedom in our country are rooted in a Christian understanding that you cannot force faith and obedience without destroying both. As long as someone’s individual freedom does not damage the social cohesion of society, there should be maximum allowance.
In point of fact, Andrew would have a much stronger case if he said that sodomy laws were an example of “Christianist” laws. I would agree. What happens in the privacy of someone’s home between consenting adults does not generally affect society. It does not make people less productive citizens (as does the abuse of legal or illegal drugs), and thus those laws are highly suspect. As a Christian, I still believe that such behavior does violate God’s ultimate best for humanity, but the Holy Spirit is the one who convicts and brings repentance, not the Sheriff of El Paso County.
But gay marriage…that is a radically different subject. Clearly the institution of marriage does impact the larger social structure. My opposition to gay marriage is rooted (at least the religious side of the opposition) in the difficulty of giving official government sanction to something that God objects to in the scriptures (and yes, the subject of homosexual relations is not arguable textually – there is no affirmation of it anywhere and only condemnation…and yes, they understand homosexual orientation in the ancient world as we do today). To vote for something that God opposes would seem to be a strange choice if I take my faith seriously. Even to acquiesce, to be quiet and neither oppose nor affirm, is not an acceptable action since it would indicate that it “unimportant.” This is a similar point on the abortion issue.
So, Andrew wants people to enjoy their faith (as he does) but not have it in any way impact their world (aside from personal piety…you know, like German Christians who read their Bible in the quiet of their home as trains full of Jewish prisoners went by outside). To do otherwise does not make people “Christianists” but Christians. Why do I use the horrific example of the Holocaust here? Because, even if America were to fall to the the Islamcists and Sharia law become the law of the land, if homosexuals were being rounded up by the government, I as a Christian would work politcally and personally to protect their lives and prosperity. I would stand at every railway crossing to stop those trucks and trains because of my faith.
Now, I would agree with Andrew that our concern regarding issues such as poverty and the care of the environment should be as strong as our opposition to gay marriage and abortion. And, thankfully, it is increasingly becoming so. But calling people like me a “Christianists” is not going to motivate people to their full Christian obligation.
Andrew would be better served by a) not resorting to comparing Christians who vote their conscious to throat-cutting terrorist b) presenting an argument that gay marriage is in full alignment with the Christian scriptures (and if there isn’t one, perhaps as a Christian he himself should question his support and c) encourage people of faith to be passionate about all the callings of biblical faith.
Instead Andrew resorted to cheap shots and so many straw men that the Wizard of Oz should fear an invasion. Andrew can do better than that…or maybe he thinks the Left should declare a “War on Christians”? The logical conclusion of his article is that these “Christianists” are a threat to the American way of life, and should such threats be “dealt with”?
