A Chistian and A Democrat

Can someone legitimately call themselves a Christian and vote or campaign for Barak Obama? This question was mentioned yesterday in Sunday School, and, though no answer was given, it was asked in a sort of rhetorical manner that showed the underlying assumptions of the person asking the question.

I apologize if you read the title of this post and thought I was going to write some new joke about an unusual group of men walking into a bar or something.

By the way, don't assume anything just yet about my own opinions, just because I started this post of with a mention about Sunday School. These days, there are few other places where people openly discuss deep ideas of spirituality, culture, and (yes, even) political thought in a similar fashion. Perhaps many Sunday School classes are not very open (or deep), but this one happened to be both.

If we seriously ponder the question, and the man, shouldn't it seem strange to us that professing Christians would openly imply that other professing Christians can't conscientiously vote for Obama, himself a professing Christian?

I've also similar derogatory references to the Democratic Party as a whole. "I've never really known anyone," I once heard a friend say, "who was a Christian, and also considered themselves a Democrat."

The people who made those statements would both see themselves as conscientious political thinkers, I am sure. However, from the perspectives of many other listeners, it might be hard to see anything other than a couple of sheltered, upper-middle class, white American males voicing sheltered opinions that only really make sense in their little upper-middle class world.

What is it that makes the Republican Party so Christian, and the Democratic Party so apparently unchristian?

Since the central figure of the Christian faith is Jesus Christ, maybe we would do best to ask what he would do, or say, or in this case, support. A few verses to consider:

Matthew 25:35-36, 40
35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'

40"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'

Mark 12:28-31
he asked him, "Of all the commandments, which is the most important?"

29 "The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: '...Love the Lord your God with all your heart...' 31The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these."

These two passages were just the first that came to mind; I'm sure I could find more to go along with what I'm about to say.

The least of these. The least of these is generally taken to mean children, or the poor, or someone with some sort of disadvantage in society. It's one of those distinctions that, taken in different ways, could be applied to almost anyone, based on the circumstances. In Matthew 25, Jesus is saying that works of eternal value are those that lift up "the least of these".

Loving your neighbor. The common question that follows is, "Who is my neighbor?" In a similar Bible passage, Jesus replied by telling the story of the Good Samaritan, a story of one man who acted as a neighbor to one unfortunate individual, who happened to also be a member of a rival ethnic group. The "Good Samaritan" man looked out for and supported his unfortunate friend, whom he had found on the side of the road, beaten badly and in need of care. The answer to the question, then, was that the follower of Christ ought to consider everyone as their neighbor, especially when thinking about how to love their neighbors.

Drawing on these principles then, how would we structure society so that these undeniably Christian principles are best upheld? If we would like to see a society that is more favorable toward Christian principles, or in some ways holds Christian principles high, then which policies should we stand for?

Which party line should we tow? Is there a party line that matches these principles?

How about this: Can someone be a Democrat and a Christian, based on these principles? Can someone vote for Barak? You tell me.

On Nietzsche

Few had as much influence on the twentieth century as did Friedrich Nietzsche; therefore it does not behoove our generation to be ignorant of his teachings. Ignorance will not help us learn from his missteps, or gain insight from his reflection. Nietzsche’s regarded Christianity, as a parasitic religion, denying of life and delighting in the submission of its (stronger) enemies. In his own words, “parasitism [is] the only practice of the church; with its ideal… of ‘holiness,’ draining… all hope for life.” He saw the Christian cross of Jesus Christ as “the mark… for the most subterranean conspiracy that ever existed… against life itself.” Closing out his work The Anti-Christ, he declares, “I condemn Christianity. It is to me the highest of all conceivable corruptions.”

What would give one impetus toward such hostility for Christianity, a creed that unites over 2 billion people worldwide? We can trace Nietzsche’s logic to his exaltation of instinct and natural strength – to Nietzsche, instinct was mankind’s way toward progress, and suppression of instinct was equivalent to suppression of progress, of survival, of all that is truly good. Christianity is the ultimate suppressor of instinct. But Christianity is also a system driven at its very core by contempt for those blessed with strength. Morality and “free will” were concepts created by theologians to make mankind responsible for his actions, and therefore in need of a priest’s guidance. Christianity is a scheme of the weak that subdues the strong. The natural end of saintly devotion, in Nietzsche’s mind, was a eunuch – one who had thrown off all natural passions of this world, all strength and instinct, for the virtue of his God above. “The saint in whom God delights is the ideal eunuch. Life has come to an end where the ‘kingdom of God’ begins.”

Because Nietzsche saw Christian morality as anti-instinct, anti-strength, his conclusion was that Christianity was the death of the human race. But to the Christian in the crowd, I say that we should not simply dismiss such beliefs, thinking, “we must protect our children,” or, “we must protect our minds from such attacks.” I believe that few influential writers have had such insight into true human nature as Nietzsche. Without God, there is nothing else but us. Let us stop imagining that others should respect our morality, our judgment, our way of life. Our system is not one of our own strength, and it is not one of our own logic or merit – therefore it is against the system of logic and strength that we are given naturally.

However, to those who are not Christians, I say that Nietzsche was right – instinct and strength should be the way of the human – and yet he was wrong. For though the human’s way should be to pursue strength and instinct, I would suggest that that way does not go up or forward. Look around yourself and see the news of sorrow everywhere, the endless wars, deaths without reason. Look inside and search for a reason in all these things. Then, tell me, if you can, that man’s true instinct, once unfurled, will lead him toward unfettered progress, and eventually, perfection.

The Greater Hypocrisy

I was writing in my journal Sunday about this topic, and it dawned on me that perhaps there is a greater hypocrisy among those faithful to the church than there is among those cultural Christians that identify themselves with the church but show only marginal conviction. It has become increasingly apparent to me that those truly in the grips of the gospel will want to share their faith - not as something that they do, but as the foremost thing that they do. This means that in raising their children, they are training them to share their faith; in loving their spouse, they are encouraging them to share their faith; in choosing a career, they are choosing the place in which Christ can best use them to expand His kingdom; in attending church, they are learning how to share their faith better; an so on.

But sadly, most people in church on a Sunday morning don't want to share their faith - not as the foremost thing. And so they are faithful to the church, hoping that the church will meet another need of theirs, be it community or importance or truth. They use the church to meet a need that it was not meant to meet. And so they misuse the church. See, when people say that the church is full of hypocrites, they are saying that the church is full of people who, on Sunday, say, "yes - I believe this," but then the rest of the weak say, "I'm not going to believe this stuff enough to change the way I live. It's important, but I just don't care enough." But then the hypocrites I'm talking about say, "I don't really believe this stuff, but I'm going to pretend that I do as long as I can so that I can use this church to get something that I want." I may be misguided, but all the sudden I am thinking that this is the greater hypocrisy, because it is on a much deeper level.

Of course, I'm convicting myself here as the greatest offender. And then there are those who don't do the things they want to do, but do the things they don't want to do, and so on and so forth. I am not sure that this state of agony exhonerates one from the above offense, but even so, it is probably the state of half of the Church today.