Faith Is Not A Political Weapon

Although faith and religion are a part of my life, I normally don’t write about them. Although I have stated in the past that morality is a big part of my political thinking, I don’t try to use religion to explain why someone should be of a certain political leaning. I occasionally find that same ethic to have failed among members of the Left. Despite a desire not to be proselytized to by the likes of me, there seems to be an almost eagerness to do the same to prove the “correctness” of their cause.

What’s got me worked up this week is a review by Newsweek editor John Meacham in the Washington Post of a newbook by Obery Hendricks, Jr., The Politics of Jesus. Although I have not read it, the review gives a fairly good idea of what it’s about. The sickeningly sweet review by Meacham is bad enough.

The Politics of Jesus joins John Danforth's Faith and Politics and Jim Wallis's God's Politics as essential reading for Americans trying to move beyond the corrosive standoff between the religious right and the secular left. One need not agree with Hendricks's liberalism to appreciate that his book is a useful contribution to a conversation that seems ever more urgent: how to manage and marshal religion's influence over our public lives.

I’ve rarely heard the philosophical and theological battles between the “religious right” and “secular left” described as “corrosive”. How they’re corrosive is a good question, but hardly an original one when considering the source. The belief by many on the Left that Jesus at best should be left in the realm of an obscure historical figure and at worst should be co-opted to the Liberal agenda defies their logic that “conservatives are obsessed with Jesus”. On the contrary, such works seem to indicate that it is the Left that is obsessed with deconstructing Christ and his impact on our lives through our faith and our religion.

Christ’s message was one of forgiveness, love and respect for all mankind. He cared nothing for the politics of the time. In fact, it could be argued that one of the things that most angered the leaders of the various sects of Judaism at the time was that Christ was not political. “They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.” couldn’t say it more plainly (that's Matthew's version from the KJB).

Jesus could not be described as a “political revolutionary”. His was a revolution of the spirit and our redemption of same. It is often perverted by a figure on the Left to indicate that the established order and what have become conservative principles are at odds with His message. I’ve seen Jesus invoked for everything from gun control to welfare. Take Meacham’s own words from his review as the latest example.

To practice the politics of Jesus means practicing humility, an exercise that might well begin by bearing this story from the gospel of Mark in mind: The disciples had been traveling to meet Jesus, debating among themselves "who should be the greatest" -- a classically political undertaking. Learning of the bickering, Jesus would have none of it, saying: "If any man desire to be first, the same shall be last of all, and servant of all." And so may our politics, whether connected to the examples and words of Jesus or of Plato or of Machiavelli, be informed by charity and grace, not by self-righteousness. Then, and only then, will we come close, I think, to anything like "the politics of Jesus."

I think it would be hard to miss that Jesus is saying that the truly great among us are those that care most for our fellow man. Those who serve, unquestioningly and without expectation of accolade or reward are the best of us. Note, though, that Meacham, as many on the Left do, believes that charity and grace can be achieved through government. Meacham’s tacit endorsement of this practice, that the Leftist principles of income redistribution are the same as Christian charity, smack of someone who completely doesn’t get it. Christ did not say “Pick from the pocket of the man next to you to give to the needy” or “If a man will not give, hold a sword to him and threaten his life and family until he does”. How is that “redemption”? How is that becoming a better person? Where in any part of the New Testament is that recommended? It cannot be found. You cannot find salvation by being forced to “be good”. You can only choose to be good. Otherwise, what is Free Will?

Being good, by the way, does not entail taking someone else’s money and then redistributing it to your idea of charity or pet project. That’s called thievery and trying to play Robin Hood doesn’t make you closer to God. It just means you’d rather spend someone else’s money than your own; not very Christian, if you ask me. Nor is it very Christian to try and denigrate the political leanings of others by informing them that they’re violating the tenets of their faith, when you haven’t the slightest idea of what it truly means to have that faith. I don’t expect them to understand that, but for once I’d like to see someone call them on it. That, perhaps, more than anything is why I chose this rare occasion to discuss faith, religion and politics and why they don’t always combine together very well.

Hat tip to Newsbusters for the story.