By Rudy Barnes, Jr.
The
November election has prompted much commentary on how Christians could have supported
Donald Trump, who represents the antithesis of Christian morality. Perhaps it’s because Christian concepts of
legitimacy—those standards of what is right—vary among the vast diversity of
Christians. Many, if not most, Christians
have subordinated the teachings of Jesus to moral standards more congenial to materialism
and worldly success in today’s world.
Religion
has long been a source of a culture’s standards of legitimacy. But since the Enlightenment of the 18th
century, libertarian values have challenged ancient Biblical standards of
legitimacy. Concepts of individual
rights, democracy and the secular rule of law are not Biblical. They are derived from natural law, and while they
are difficult to reconcile with religion and politics, the American religion has
done just that.
The
American religion is a hybrid of traditional Judaism and Christianity that has
been transformed by the sanctification of individual rights and free
enterprise. The altruism of the
teachings of Jesus summarized in the
greatest commandment to love God and our neighbors as ourselves has been subsumed
by a form of self-centered objectivism promoted by Ayn Rand and practiced on
Wall Street. It has become the prevalent
doctrine of belief in Christian America.
Over
70% of Americans claim to be Christians, and more than 80% of white Christians
supported Donald Trump. His supporters
included prominent radical-right evangelists like Jerry Falwell, Jr. and
Franklin Graham, while a relatively few evangelical leaders, like Russell Moore
of the Southern Baptist Convention, advocated Christian morality based on the
teachings of Jesus and opposed Trump. They
offered a stark contrast in Christian standards of legitimacy.
Conflicting
standards of political legitimacy are not unique to Christianity in
America. Judaism and Islam offer similar
contrasts. Each of these Abrahamic
religions has its religious fundamentalists who consider the laws of their holy
books their primary standards of legitimacy, and they oppose libertarian values
and concepts of justice. While fundamentalists
are a minority in the libertarian democracies of the West, they are a majority
in Islamic cultures.
Most
people in the world are religious, and Islam is expected to surpass
Christianity as the world’s largest religion within twenty years. The inexorable forces of globalization
promise even more religious pluralism around the world in the future, and the rise
of radical-right politics and the violence of Islamist terrorism will continue if
conflicting standards of political legitimacy are not reconciled to tolerable
levels. It is a challenge for both
religion and politics.
Jerusalem
has long been a crucible for religious conflict among Jews, Christians and
Muslims in the Levant. Relative peace
has been maintained by the dominance of moderate Jewish secularists in Israeli politics,
but that is changing as Jewish fundamentalists gain influence and power in
Israel, and they no doubt welcome President-Elect Trump’s appointment of a fellow
fundamentalist Jew as the U.S ambassador to Israel.
Security
Council Resolution 2334 condemned the expansion of Jewish settlements in
occupied territory. The U.S. did not
veto it as it has done to similar proposals in the past, and after the
Resolution passed Secretary of State Kerry explained it this way:
“Today
there are a number of Jews and Palestinians living between the Jordan River and
the Mediterranean Sea. They have a choice. They can choose to live together in
one state or they can separate into two states. But here is a fundamental
reality: If the choice is one state, Israel can either be Jewish or democratic,
it cannot be both.”
In
the tribal cultures of the Middle East, religion and reason support the expedient
ethic of the enemy of my enemy is my
friend. There are few reliable
alliances in that unstable region. Trump
and his Christian supporters have used that primitive tribal ethic in their
unwillingness to condemn Russia’s hacking of Democrat websites during the
campaign. Such a transient political rationale
threatens traditional U.S. alliances, like those of NATO.
We
have seen Christian religious fundamentalism give political legitimacy to radical-right
demagogues in the U.S. and Islamist fundamentalism give political legitimacy to
terrorists in Islamic cultures. Now we
are witnessing the rise of Jewish fundamentalism in Israel, aided and abetted
by the U.S., which threatens to replace a fragile democracy with a Jewish
theocracy that could ignite a powder-keg of religious violence in the Middle
East.
Religion
and reason shape concepts of political legitimacy around the world, for good or
bad. Religious fundamentalism coupled with
transitory political alliances threaten the stability of libertarian democracy,
justice and world peace. The greatest commandment to love God and
neighbor is a common word of faith
for Jews, Christians and Muslims alike.
It offers a way for religions to promote a politics of reconciliation that
can foster political stability and world peace.
Notes:
On Rev. Dr. Russell Moore, see How Trump's Evangelical Supporters Can Atone,
at https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2016/12/08/how-trumps-evangelical-supporters-can-atone/?wpisrc=nl_popns&wpmm=1; Russell Moore Responds to Southern Baptist
Detractors, at http://religionnews.com/2016/12/20/russell-moore-responds-to-southern-baptist-detractors/; and How to Speak Christian Truth to Political
Power, at
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-to-speak-christian-truth-to-political-power/2016/12/25/bdf2bc7c-c941-11e6-bf4b-2c064d32a4bf_story.html?wpisrc=nl_headlines&wpmm=1
On Franklin Graham’s assertion that
God, not Russia, intervened in the election of Donald Trump, see http://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/article121729539.html.
On why it’s time we think of politics more like religion, see http://religionnews.com/2016/12/07/its-time-we-think-of-politics-more-like-religion/.
On Donald Trump’s religion of success, see http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/12/donald-trumps-religion-of-success/.
On the danger of Jewish religious
fundamentalism in Israel, see http://religionnews.com/2017/01/02/israel-threatened-by-religion/.
On how tribal concepts of religion
and reason—the enemy of my enemy is my
friend—can distort concepts of political legitimacy, see https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-is-good-assange-helped-trump-therefore-assange-is-good/2017/01/05/6e596746-d36a-11e6-a783-cd3fa950f2fd_story.html?wpisrc=nl_headlines&wpmm=1.
On Religion and Reason, see http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2014/12/religion-and-reason.html (Note:
References in the End Notes are to Resources at http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/).
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 religion and human rights, see http://www.jesusmeetsmuhammad.com/2015/02/religion-and-human-rights.html.
On a fundamental problem with religion, see http://www.jesusmeetsmuhammad.com/2015/05/a-fundamental-problem-with-religion.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 irreconcilable differences and the demise of democracy, see http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2016/11/irreconcilable-differences-and-demise.html.
On religion and reconciliation following an apocalyptic election, see http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2016/11/religion-and-reconciliation-after.html.
No comments:
Post a Comment