By Rudy Barnes, Jr.
There
is a place for righteous anger in American religion and politics. That’s because the church has failed to
provide the shared values needed for a politics of reconciliation. By failing to promote the moral teachings of
Jesus in the stewardship of our democracy, the church has allowed partisan
politics to become so polarized that they have ignored the common good.
In
the recent election the black church promoted Democrat candidates, while the
so-called evangelical church and most white Catholics promoted Republican
candidates. The mainline Protestant
church abstained, avoiding the toxic mix of religion and politics. And few Christians questioned those
inconsistent positions of the church on the role of faith and politics.
The
election revealed a dangerous political divide that threatens to unravel the
fabric of American democracy. Americans
have not been so deeply divided since they fought a Civil War to preserve their
union. Today social, economic and
cultural differences have once again polarized our politics and undermined the
shared values so essential for a healthy democracy.
The
American two-party duopoly is partly to blame for our political polarization
and gridlock. Unlike parliamentary
democracies with multiple parties that share power and mitigate against bipolar
stalemate, the American two-party duopoly depends upon moderates within each
party to avoid political polarization, making it vulnerable to partisan
polarization and gridlock.
Political
moderates have become a rarity in American politics. Partisan polarization has become the norm
with a leftist Democrat Party that challenges traditions with an intellectual
elite and a coalition of minority groups, and a radical-right GOP that is
predominately white and blue collar, and that seeks to preserve traditions and return
to the idyllic days of the past.
In
the recent election, Donald Trump was more effective in motivating his radical-right
supporters than was Hillary Clinton in motivating her leftist supporters—at
least for electoral votes. But tribalism
and contentious identity politics left a post-election landscape of polarized partisan
politics, with little prospect for balancing group (or tribal) special interests
with providing for the overall common good, which is essential for any healthy
democracy.
The
lack of political moderation in America is hard to understand. It is a nation where most identify as Jews,
Christians or Muslims, and all share belief in the greatest commandment to love God and their neighbors as themselves
as a common word of faith. But most voters defied that altruistic
principle of faith and voted to make a nativist narcissist their President.
The
civic obligation to provide for the common good is a matter of morality, not
law; and religion is the primary source of moral standards. If voters don’t honor the altruistic moral standards
of their faith, there are no shared values to hold the fabric of American
democracy together. The 14th
Amendment and civil rights laws guarantee equal protection of the law to all
citizens, but the law cannot mandate a political commitment to care for others
and provide for the common good. That is
a moral obligation.
That
distinction between the role of law and morality in democracy underscores the
important role of religion in politics.
The 1st amendment to the Constitution doesn’t require the
separation of religion and politics; it only prohibits government from
establishing or promoting any religion. In
fact, any religion that doesn’t relate the moral imperatives of its faith to
politics is impotent. It is as dead in a
democracy as a body without the spirit. (See James 2:26)
There
is a related principle of morality and law that relates to religion and
politics. The enforcement of religious
law distorts libertarian concepts of justice based on human rights and the
secular rule of law, as when apostasy and blasphemy laws deny the fundamental
freedoms of religion and speech, and women and religious minorities are denied
equal justice under law.
That
happened in colonial America under the Puritans, and continues today in Islamic
nations—even in democracies—where the primacy of Islamic law, or shari’a, creates
a tyranny of the majority. Whenever religion
uses coercive political power to impose its laws on others, it produces
injustice. Without a commitment to provide
for the common good of all, regardless of their race, religion or sexual
preference, libertarian democracy is doomed to fail.
The
election of Donald Trump was made possible by self-proclaimed Christians, like
those of the prosperity gospel, whose religious beliefs subordinate the
altruistic teachings of Jesus to selfish materialistic desires. That makes those who believe that the moral
teachings of Jesus should be at the heart of Christianity angry—and it’s a righteous
anger.
Notes:
Professor Kathy Cramer has reported
on the social, economic, cultural and political divide between rural residents
of Wisconsin who supported Donald Trump and the urban elite who opposed him.
See https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/11/08/a-new-theory-for-why-trump-voters-are-so-angry-that-actually-makes-sense/?tid=hybrid_experimentrandom_2_na.
Professor Stephen J. Pope has
described Donald Trump as the antithesis of Christian morality and advocated
deferring any political reconciliation until justice can be assured under his
administration. See https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/not-time-reconciliation.
During the campaign Protestant
leaders also condemned Donald Trump as the antithesis of Christian morality,
but it seemed to have little effect on the way their followers voted. See http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2016/10/a-revelation-in-american-politics-and.html and http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2016/10/partisan-politics-after-election-back.html and notes to
that commentary.
On the prosperity gospel as a
distorted version Christianity that motivated Trump supporters, see
On a progressive form of
Christianity that considers the teachings of Jesus to be moral imperatives of
the faith, see http://progressivechristianity.org/resources/progressive-christian-unapologetics/.
On the failure of mainline
Protestant churches to relate matters of faith to politics, see http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/22/most-say-their-churches-remained-above-the-electoral-fray-this-year/?utm_source=Pew+Research+Center&utm_campaign=5b04203837-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2016_12_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_3e953b9b70-5b04203837-399971105.
On the greatest commandment as a
common word of faith for Jews, Christians and Muslims, see http://www.jesusmeetsmuhammad.com/2015/01/jesus-meets-muhammad-is-there-common.html.
On balancing individual rights with providing for the common good, see
http://www.jesusmeetsmuhammad.com/2015/08/balancing-individual-rights-with.html.
On the need for a politics of reconciliation in a polarized democracy,
see http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2016/10/the-need-for-politics-of-reconciliation.html.
On religion and a politics of reconciliation based on shared values,
see http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2016/11/religion-and-politics-of-reconciliation.html.
No comments:
Post a Comment