I received an email recently from an old college friend, an appeal passed on and shared, apparently, among many people.
The request was for recipients to “pray for America.” Exclaiming, as it did, that this was our nation’s “last chance” to “save itself.”
Not that there is anything wrong with such a request. In fact, in his Romans 13 assertion, Paul implies that such praying is an important duty, at least for Christians. And, from the Book of Common Prayer, Episcopalians pray specifically for our nation and our leaders, at all levels of government, every Sunday.
Even though, within the larger Christian family, one can find considerable disagreement concerning how Paul’s admonition–“Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities”– how this should be interpreted or practiced. For example, Lutheran theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer was martyred for his civil disobedience to the emergence of Nazism in his native Germany; in fact, a civil disobedience even given to violence. Just as the Baptist preacher, the late Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., was jailed for his, conversely, non-violent civil disobedience in the face of American racism.
The email I received was even more specific. It claimed that “America has forsaken its Christian identity,” having become “secular” rather than “religious.” And it referred, specifically, to the following controversial social, political, and/or moral issues: “evolution, same-sex-marriage, the pro-choice option where abortion is concerned, and other First Amendment matters, including corporate prayer in our nation’s public schools.”
The letter clearly suggested that embracing the “correct” response to any and all of these issues is to be equated with “being a Christian.” And even though no names were mentioned, it just as clearly implied that if holding the “right view” on such matters corresponds to qualifying as “a Christian,” this also translates into the supporting of a particular political party and its candidates for election here in America these days–most notably, in the choosing of our nation’s president.
Except, of course, within the wider Christian family not all sincere believers necessarily agree on such a “correct” response to any, much less all of the issues cited–at least as “correct” was defined in the email I received.
Which suggests, then: if there is, from a purely secular perspective, a considerable polarizing among our nation’s body politic in relation to any number of social, political and/or moral matters, the same would seem also true among a diverse constituency that would call itself “Christian.”
In fact, it strikes me that whatever one may answer, these days, to the question–“Are you a Christian?”–it yet remains hardly clear as to what that means. With respect, for example, to such various divisive issues as the email noted.
However devoted to a faithful understanding of the Bible and its purpose, to its profound and definitive moral and spiritual truth, if one does not however consider such scripture to represent the clearest and simplest understanding of science, in both its importance and limitations, does that then mean, as the email suggested, that one is not “a Christian?”
In other words, to qualify as “a Christian,” does one have to support the teaching of so-called “creationism” in the science classes of our nation’s public schools? To disagree with such an assertion–the important distinction between what is and isn’t science–this, the recent email I received cited as but one example of our having forfeited the “Christian identity” of our national life.
Likewise with so-called “same-sex-marriage.” According to that email, a concern with yours or mine or anyone’s particular sexual orientation is surely among the Bible’s highest of priorities. And anyone who doesn’t understand that is surely not “a Christian.”
Except even a casual reading of scripture reveals just how little the Bible actually has to say on the subject. In fact, it is generally agreed that there are only seven references to homosexuality in all of scripture, none of which reflect anything close to a contemporary, scientifically informed understanding of the complexity of human sexuality.
Much less the fact that Jesus himself never addresses the subject. Which raises an important question concerning faithful Bible reading. If one considers Jesus to be the “living word of God,” and therefore interprets all of scripture through the lens of his life and teaching, what is patently obvious is how much of the Bible is so notably in conflict with the very Jesus the same Bible bears witness to.
Opposition to “same-sex-marriage”–which the email I received considers the litmus test of Christian ethics–it fails to understand marriage in our society from a First Amendment perspective. Out of which even heterosexual Christians, in fact, “get married.” As it were, in two rather distinct ways. Legally, persons are married at the courthouse, where they engage in a civil contract concerning property and other related matters. In other words, “marriage” from a secular perspective. Whereas a “church wedding”–or at least, for Christians, one officiated by a minister or priest–it represents the “blessing” of such a union on behalf of God, no less, on the part of a couple’s particular community of faith.
And according to the First Amendment, if the state is not meant to be defined religiously–Christian or otherwise–the state is also proscribed from defining or prohibiting anyone’s religion (or lack thereof), or any religious community, in terms of either conviction or practice. Currently, the United Church of Christ, the Metropolitan Community Church and the Unitarian Church are the only religious communities which are officially “on the record” in support of “blessing” same sex unions.
Among the several hot-button social, political and/or moral issues mentioned in the email I received, surely none is more provocative, in America these days, than what is commonly termed “Pro-Life,” or “Pro-Choice” where abortion is concerned.
Except that such a dichotomy fails to recognize that just because one may consider her/himself to be “Pro-Choice,” that does not mean that one is not also “Pro-Life.” Such is the important difference between either/or and both/and thinking, where the former–a more simplistic “bumper sticker” mentality–where it merely serves the narrow political purpose of whomever in a way that hardly promotes more rigorous moral reasoning. At least when life gets reduced to–as in this case–at best, the “lesser of evils.”
Put simply, whomever generated the email I received, he or she obviously, from a secular perspective, missed school the day they taught history. For to claim that America is meant to be an explicitly “Christian nation” is a tragically flawed notion. Or as someone has said, “You have a right to your own opinions, but not to your own facts.”
Moreover–certainly from a Christian perspective–beyond any such blatant re-writing of history, the inability to read is a matter of even deeper concern. At least when it comes to the Bible. Since the Bible’s story is fundamentally ironic.
In other words, a faithful reading of scripture clearly suggests that the deeper, more genuine, authentic and secure one’s Christianity, at least, the less s/he will need to express her/his faith so overtly, much less in any way that suggests dominance with respect to others who may hold quite different views, religious or otherwise.
Or as Jesus instructs Christians to be “salt” and “light” (Matthew 5: 13-16)–even in the most pluralistic, if not secular of cultures. For if too much “light” can be blinding, rather than necessarily “enlightening”; just as too much “salt” is distasteful, rather than, when appropriated proportionately, “preservative”: so does any religion–even of the Christian kind–lose its vitality when it dominates, rather than influences a culture. And if you don’t believe that is true, consider the vitality of particular “state churches” in most European countries.
This is surely the genius of the First Amendment to our nation’s Constitution–at least from a Christian perspective; at least according to Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount. For if the First Amendment supports the purpose of a religion, not unlike Christianity, in providing the influence of moral and spiritual “salt” and “light” in our national life, it also provides two other important functions. Not only does it protect our nation from the excesses of any religion, even Christianity. It also protects any religion from itself, from its own excesses–even of the Christian kind–which is inevitable whenever religion and politics become too cozy bed fellows.
Speaking of ironies, the shopping list of social, political and/or moral issues cited in the email I received–a “correct” understanding of which the letter defined as sufficiently Christian–these would seem to stand in rather stark contrast to other vital expressions of Christian ethics which the Bible reveals as likely even more important.
Not the least of which concerns economic inequity. About which the Bible, in general–and Jesus, in particular–actually have more to say than any other subject. In fact, the weight of scripture clearly indicts “wealth” as a “moral burden” that even exceeds the “problem” of “poverty.” With Jesus even suggesting an inverse correlation between material and moral and spiritual “wealth,” much less “health.”
Or that matters of racism, sexism, the Bible’s advocacy of non-violence (at least according to Jesus), as well as a concern for the care of creation, i.e. the environment–that these aren’t, from a scriptural perspective, also important ethical priorities. Still, none would seem more important than yours or mine or anyone’s attitude and relationship to money. At least when you read the Bible.
Even though the email I received claimed that an economic philosophy more akin to that of Ayn Rand than to what the Bible so clearly teaches: that this, ironically–and tragically so–is what, with respect to economics, constitutes Christian ethics.
Not to mention–lest I forget–the email also included “gun ownership” as a virtue every bit as Christian as American; implying that such is comparable, however morally perverse, to the “loving of one’s neighbor.”
So–as the email I received implored–I’m sure I will, in these days, be “praying for America.” I suspect, however, that the what and how of my praying will likely be different from the praying of whomever generated the letter. Perhaps even the old college friend who passed it on to me.
