Often the media miss or ignore this kind of new evangelical leader. There is a tendency to elevate the most irresponsible and strident religious figures, mostly because it makes for better cable TV. This practice reflects a stereotype held by many media decision makers, who view every orthodox Christian as a fundamentalist, and every fundamentalist as a theocrat. The stereotype is unfair and uninteresting. Evangelicalism is both more diverse and more idealistic than its critics understand. And that should be welcome news for Americans, religious and secular alike.One of many aspects in our current political climate that is negative is the tendency to lump all Evangelicals, really all Christians, into the Republican camp. This isn’t just making the assumption that Christians hold conservative values, this is saying that Christians have taken the Republican Party as their own. In many instances, this is true, but it is a fallacy, and a disservice to Christians, to assume this is natural. The Republican Party has formed its message to fit the conservative beliefs of many Americans and now it seems many Christians are forming their beliefs to fit the Republican message. As with any tide, it’s bound to recede. As Gerson points out, perhaps it is starting to happen (perhaps the “new Evangelical” he speaks of is not “new” in the sense of “never seen before”, but “new” in the sense that “it is a fresh perspective in the current political climate”). The issues that are important to Christians should go beyond Party lines and should be about individual platforms. There will probably never be the perfect candidate for Christians, and many of the candidates that are chosen by Christians may be Republican, but there should be a willingness to not be closed in. If the Democratic Party is smart, they will stop marginalizing this group. Gerson words it this way:
These changes in evangelicalism should be an opportunity for Democrats. But seizing it would require a philosophic shift. Modern liberalism has defined the belief in truth as the enemy of tolerance because absolute claims of right and wrong lead to coercion. And religious claims, in this view, are the most intolerant of all, and should be radically privatized so no one's morality gets "imposed" on another. It is difficult for liberals and Democrats to appeal to religious people while declaring their deepest motivations a threat to the republic. And it is difficult to imagine the history of the republic if this narrow view had prevailed. How does moral skepticism and privatized religion motivate decades of struggle against slavery, or lead men and women, step by step, toward the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma? If there is really no truth, why believe in, or sacrifice for, the self-evident truths of the Declaration of Independence?
There have been many progressive changes in this country because of the Christian influence. Gerson mentions several including Women’s Suffrage and Civil Rights. By toeing the Party line, Christians are playing into the segregating nature of politics today. Reasoned discourse has been sacrificed on the alter of ratings on cable news and in the editorial pages of most major newspapers. The nature of Christ was that of a revolutionary, and not in the sense we think of. Christianity cannot fit into a mould or an ideology and certainly not within the planks of a particular political party’s platform. By pursuing the Truth offered in the Gospels the outcome will be more progressive and at the same time conservative than either Party’s ideology could conjure up. Christians are limiting themselves by playing party politics. Be involved, engage in honest conversation and debate, research and read, but don’t play the game. Perhaps that’s the best advice for all of us.
No comments:
Post a Comment