This article was co-authored by Dan Cady is an assistant professor of history at California State University, Fresno. He publishes on the history of the American West, music, and religion.
The results from a recent poll published by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life (http://www.pewforum.org/Politics-and-Elections/Tea-Party-and-Religion.aspx) reveal what social scientists have known for a long time: White Evangelical Christians are the group least likely to support politicians or policies that reflect the actual teachings of Jesus. It is perhaps one of the strangest, most dumb-founding ironies in contemporary American culture. Evangelical Christians, who most fiercely proclaim to have a personal relationship with Christ, who most confidently declare their belief that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, who go to church on a regular basis, pray daily, listen to Christian music, and place God and His Only Begotten Son at the center of their lives, are simultaneously the very people most likely to reject his teachings and despise his radical message.
Jesus unambiguously preached mercy and forgiveness. These are supposed to be cardinal virtues of the Christian faith. And yet Evangelicals are the most supportive of the death penalty, draconian sentencing, punitive punishment over rehabilitation, and the governmental use of torture. Jesus exhorted humans to be loving, peaceful, and non-violent. And yet Evangelicals are the group of Americans most supportive of easy-access weaponry, little-to-no regulation of handgun and semi-automatic gun ownership, not to mention the violent military invasion of various countries around the world. Jesus was very clear that the pursuit of wealth was inimical to the Kingdom of God, that the rich are to be condemned, and that to be a follower of Him means to give one's money to the poor. And yet Evangelicals are the most supportive of corporate greed and capitalistic excess, and they are the most opposed to institutional help for the nation's poor -- especially poor children. They hate anything that smacks of "socialism," even though that is essentially what their Savior preached. They despise food stamp programs, subsidies for schools, hospitals, job training -- anything that might dare to help out those in need. Even though helping out those in need was exactly what Jesus urged humans to do. In short, Evangelicals are that segment of America which is the most pro-militaristic, pro-gun, and pro-corporate, while simultaneously claiming to be most ardent lovers of the Prince of Peace.
What's the deal?
Before attempting an answer, allow a quick clarification. Evangelicals don't exactly hate Jesus -- as we've provocatively asserted in the title of this piece. They do love him dearly. But not because of what he tried to teach humanity. Rather, Evangelicals love Jesus for what he does for them. Through his magical grace, and by shedding his precious blood, Jesus saves Evangelicals from everlasting torture in hell, and guarantees them a premium, luxury villa in heaven. For this, and this only, they love him. They can't stop thanking him. And yet, as for Jesus himself -- his core values of peace, his core teachings of social justice, his core commandments of goodwill -- most Evangelicals seem to have nothing but disdain.
And this is nothing new. At the end of World War I, the more rabid, and often less educated Evangelicals decried the influence of the Social Gospel amongst liberal churches. According to these self-proclaimed torch-bearers of a religion born in the Middle East, progressive church-goers had been infected by foreign ideas such as German Rationalism, Soviet-style Communism, and, of course, atheistic Darwinism. In the 1950s, the anti-Social Gospel message piggybacked the rhetoric of anti-communism, which slashed and burned its way through the Old South and onward through the Sunbelt, turning liberal churches into vacant lots along the way. It was here that the spirit and the body collided, leaving us with a prototypical Christian nationalist, hell-bent on prosperity. Charity was thus rebranded as collectivism and self-denial gave way to the gospel of accumulation. Church-to-church, sermon-to-sermon, evangelical preachers grew less comfortable with the fish and loaves Jesus who lived on earth, and more committed to the angry Jesus of the future. By the 1990s, this divine Terminator gained "most-favored Jesus status" among America's mega churches; and with that, even the mention of the former "social justice" Messiah drove the socially conscious from their larger, meaner flock.
In addition to such historical developments, there may very well simply be an underlying, all-too-human social-psychological process at root, one that probably plays itself out among all religious individuals: they see in their religion what they want to see, and deny or despise the rest. That is, religion is one big Rorschach test. People look at the content of their religious tradition -- its teachings, its creeds, its prophet's proclamations -- and they basically pick and choose what suits their own secular outlook. They see in their faith what they want to see as they live their daily lives, and simultaneously ignore the rest. And as is the case for most White Evangelical Christians, what they are ignoring is actually the very heart and soul of Jesus's message -- a message that emphasizes sharing, not greed. Peace-making, not war-mongering. Love, not violence.
Of course, conservative Americans have every right to support corporate greed, militarism, gun possession, and the death penalty, and to oppose welfare, food stamps, health care for those in need, etc. -- it is just strange and contradictory when they claim these positions as somehow "Christian." They aren't.
Mark Osler: Governor Quinn Sets The Right Tone With Abolition Of Illinois Death Penalty
Christian right - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Christian Coalition of America | Defending America's Godly Heritage!
Rise of the Religious Right in the Republican Party
The Christian Right, The Twentieth Century, Divining America ...
Let's take for example, the issue of being "for the poor" as Jesus was. Saying that a person who approves of democratic social justice causes, socialism, bailouts, or handing money to people on the street who ask you for it = being for the poor...is not true. 2 Thess. 3:10 expresses "a man who will not work will not eat". Therefore, a person should be careful HOW a person gives to the poor. Jesus was about redeeming people of their own sin, reviving a person regardless of their circumstances and situations, aka, one who is "poor" in spirit (Matthew 5:3). There is also place to "serve the poor" because they are ones who are truly in need (Matthew 19:24). But, Jesus was always purposeful in how he gave his money and his time. He gave to everyone what was in their best interest, which is a true definition of love, not "give them whatever they want". Jesus came to redeem people, to give people life abundantly (John 10:10). And this is only through Christ sacrificing himself for us so that we might know Him. And regardless of your political views, I am praying that God might give you abundant life as well.
Now does that actually happen? I don't know. But I think it's a legitimate stance. Government programs are notoriously wasteful. But then again if people where actually helping each other voluntarily would the government be stepping in? Or are people not helping each other because they've come to expect the government to do it?
It's not an easy question and I doubt Zuckerman knows how Jesus would answer. In the end we can only control our own actions so I'll practice voluntary socialism and let whoever exactly the evangelicals are make their own decisions without calling them Jesus haters when I don't agree with them.
37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’
41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."
This is a tiny subset of Christianity. Dispensationalists are more about the putative Old Testament than the redemptive New Testament.
I remember very clearly in the days after 9/11. Colin Powell saw this horror as an opportunity to move the world forward. He told the world: You may have been against us in the past, but if you are with us today, all will be forgiven.
He actually said this and meant it. He was echoing Christ's message. It was a redemptive message of progress.
Unfortunately, Bush listened to his Old Testament advisors and took a different path. Powell was fired.
Bush said he was a Christian. Obama claims that he is a Christian. I see little evidence of either claim.
Yeah, I think that justifies a little generalization on the part of Phil. You Biblical Literalists and Evangelicals have had a long, long to to sort your flock out. Unfortunately it seems you are either incapable or, more likely, passively condone.
I and many others make it a point to teach people that they don't need God, Christ, Peter Pan or Mickey Mouse to live full, happy lives-- religion does more harm than good, and it's not worth protecting it just for the handful of folks who practice it correctly (well not correctly... just know how to keep their hands out of other people's cookie jars if you know what I mean.)
There are untold millions that Christians have helped - and the number of people helped I guarantee far outweighs the number of people who have been harmed by the Church throughout the centuries. Yes - there have been blemishes and horrific things carried out in the name of religion - no one denies that. But there has been a lot more good done in the name of religion as well.
As for secular groups: the Red Cross seems to do a lot of good; Mercy Corps, too.
And although I'm not aware of any shelters run by self-described "atheists", there are plenty that have nothing to do with religion.
Well they can't think much of Jesus if this is their attitude. My personal favorite is "Christians aren't perfect, only forgiven". Now there's a classic cop-out for bad behavior and their general disdain towards all who are not like them.
Answer me this: Is the man who owns up to his sin worse than the one who hides it? Sin is condemnable in of itself. It is better to confess and ask for mercy than be full of haughty pride.
"If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess or sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word has no place in our lives." -1 John 1:8-10
But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If anyone of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her."
You care nothing about justice because you do not acknowledge your own sin and are quick to speak slander of others.
They must not have much respect for Jesus, if they think he can't smell that BS. I'm no longer a practicing Catholic, but I've studied the Gospels and I got the impression that Jesus was an intelligent character, definitely ahead of his time, even by some of today's standards.
http://desh412.blogspot.com
Some resources
(John 15:1-17) (1 John 1:5-11) (Ephesians 5:21) (Philippians 2:1-11) especially (Galatians 6:1-5, 10)
Life Together by Dietrich Bonhoeffer
As for your initial statement, please refresh your biblical quotations as Jesus is "the vine" and abstaining from pursuing the empty forms of godliness (that is the Christian majority) has nothing to do with being detached from Christ, the Vine. The proper study of the parable you're attempting to quote in your defense actually proves my point - those who pursue religion and law, ie: lawless sons of disobedience (as the Pharisees/white-washed tombs) will be cut off and burned.
I personally don't want anything to do with the false branches that don't live according to the teachings of Christ. The sad fact is Dietrich, the "brothers and sisters" cannot be restored gently for they live as though they despise the teachings of Christ. His way opposes their way and that my friend is the reality that you need to be given eyes to see.
http://desh412.blogspot.com
They believe that charity in the hands of the Goverment does not effectivly serve the poor, as years of rampent waste and fraud in many of these programs clearly demonstrates.
A clear case for the death penelty is clearly made in the Old and New Testaments, and supported by Christs teachings if one only looks criticly at them
Getting back to why Jesus came to earth in the first place, it was to save man from his sinful condition. Sin does still exist, even though theological revisionists constantly redifine it, to advance their own agendas. (Right and Left alike)
One needs to remember that none of us are perfect. Just because we are Believers does not mean we no longer sin. And just because we are forgiven doesn't give us a "free pass" to do whatever we want. There will always be faults within each of us. Striving to be more Christ like is the daily goal.
When one tries to tie politics with religion, the results are never pretty. Didn't anyone tell the author that the two do not mix well? Let me give you just one example: A Christian gets a blue collar job in a union shop. His union brothers are fighting for workers' rights, and he is urged to vote Democratic. This is a tough spot for the Christian, for that same Democratic candidate is also for abortion. The Republican candidate is pro life, but is very vocal about voting no to the workers' rights bill. Which way does a believer vote?
This is one of the many reasons why I detest political labeling. A label does not fit an individual completely. When the author labels me as an Evangelical because of my Faith, does that make everything else that he wrote about me correct?
As a wise man said: Youre as strong as your weakest link, and that pretty much sums up why I lump all christians, Zen christians, fundies, Christian Pagans, WBC and all the many sects together. They all accuse each other, and none seem to be for real love, peace, understanding or tolerance.
How do I know? My own spiritual journey forced me to conclude that it is reasonable to admit that most Christian leaders don't have the same worldview as Christ did - based on their behavior. I spent 26 years believing in hell, and I felt like a hypocrite the whole time. I was once the Christian who couldn't talk about anything other than religion. Seven ago, that changed. I had a conversion experience similar to new "Christians," and I began to share my experience with others at my home church of six years.
A year later, they asked me to not return. I believe some at the church still pray for my "salvation." I can confidently tell you as I told them: I've been there; (where they are spiritually) and I'm never going back.
Emphasis on verse 9: Even though we speak like this, dear friends, we are confident of better things in your case--things that accompany salvation.
Though if you fell away and it is impossible for you to come back, All things are possible with God (Matthew 19:26) and I am confident of better things in your case, things that accompany your salvation, even if you don't want it.
In short, if one were to eliminate the doctrine of eternal damnation from Christianity, most Christians would possess the qualities of Christ.
Now let's back up 20 steps:
A worldview is the lens through which a person experiences life. No two worldviews are exactly alike. A person's worldview colors one's emotional reaction to an experience, which then affects his thoughts about the matter. the individual then chooses a course of action from the possibilities brought up by those thoughts.
Most Christians - even leaders often say how hard it is to "act" Christian. That is because, and only because his/her worldview does not naturally lead to emotions, thoughts, and possible behaviors we associate with the written record of Christ's character.
Nearly all worldviews are learned from one' parents and other people they respect. Religion is one proven way to pass a worldview from one person to the next. Repletion, repetition, and repetition by several supposedly independent individuals is an excellent worldview imprinting technique.