I often find disconcerting the amount of time and energy certain Christians spend decrying specific, rarely (if ever) scripturally mentioned failings/sins, yet spending little if any time focusing on what seemed to Jesus (by weight of vehemence and sheer times mentioned in Scripture) the most important matters. The discussion here takes as an assumption that the "normal" Bible is true and an accurate depiction of what Jesus says.
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!
When you read the Bible, many have noted the change in tone from the Old Testament to the New Testament. While the Father is prone to bouts of anger (think the flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, etc.), Jesus is much more often overtly nice, or, when not nice, he is often aimed at changing the minds of his audience instead of punishing them. One group, though, gets his full-throated ire: The Pharisees.
Why? Because they were hypocrites. It was not that they didn't know the law -- it was that they focused on how others practiced it. People should still follow the law (at least, the Jews Christ was talking to, see Matt 23:3), but each person should focus on how he or she, as an individual person, follows it, not on how others do so.
Now, of course, part of the reason is that the law is fulfilled (see Matt 5:17-18). Because there are still moral strictures that apply, however, a more important part is that actions are to be governed by the Spirit, in particular through love. This is the New Covenant (see, for example, Jeremiah 31:31-33; in the NT, see, for example, all of Romans 2). When faced with an adulteress and a group of Pharisees, instead of sitting in judgment, Jesus implied that only those without sin should pass judgment (John 8:7). And, even though Jesus's judgments are always right, even HE does not judge (John 8:15-16). (For some, this example may not carry weight, as a large number of biblbical scholars believe this story was not in the original texts, see http://amusingbeam.blogspot.com/2012/07/problem-with-fundamentalism-part-2.html ; I hope the other examples suffice.)
The upshot of this is that Jesus very rarely is angry at anyone unless they are judging (I know, there are some notable exceptions, like people with withered hands, demons, those keepings kids from being healed ... fig trees). To me, it seems that much of his anger is directed at anyone who uses the power of the church to bring someone further from the Father.
Another way to think about this is to say that the ability to judge is not granted on a sin-by-sin basis. Simply because you do not commit adultery does not mean that you can judge an adulterer. Simply because you do not murder or covet your neighbor's wife (or--and I hope we can all agree exprapolation is appropriate here--her husband) does not mean you can judge those that do. Jesus's statement appears to say that you have to be without ALL sin before you have the capacity to judge ... and EVEN THEN you shouldn't -- that's not part of your role as a human, as Jesus himself noted that even though he would ALWAYS judge correctly, he didn't judge. Want more examples? Try these: Luke 6:37; Romans 14:1-23; 1 Corinthians 4:1-21; John 8:7; Matthew 5:22. (There are others.)
Now, there are some verses that appear to complicate this. Matthew 18:15-17 is a good example. It talks about how to handle someone who sins against you. You talk to him; if that doesn't work, you get a couple of brothers from the Church, and talk to him again; if that doesn't work, you all go to the Church and lay it before them. Finally, if all that doesn't work, you "treat him like a Gentile or a tax collector." How does Jesus treat those people? As fellow humans who must be brought into the fold of belief, NOT as evil pariahs. We can be pretty sure of this interpretation when we continue to the parable of the unforgiving servant (Matthew 18:21-35), which ends up saying that we better forgive everyone their slights against us because the Father will be forgiving ALL of our slights, which amounts to way more than any one person can ever do to us.
Other "go ahead and judge" portions of the Bible end up with similar probable interpretations. 1 Corinthians 6, for example, says don't sue each other at all -- it's better to suffer a wrong. But, if you HAVE to sue each other, use the Church to handle your grievances, not the court system. But, note that this is handling GRIEVANCES -- in other words, someone doing something that actually hurts you, not simply a person sinning with no consequences toward you. And, remember, the best response (according to Paul) is to LET IT HAPPEN. Suffer the wrong.
Where does Jesus put weight?
The New Covenant is about love. As Paul said (and I paraphrase), three virtues remain: faith, hope, and love... and the greatest is love. (1 Corinthians 13:13). According to John, as we all know, God loved the world so much that he gave his unique Son ("only begotten" is pretty, but a bad translation) to death so that believers would not "die" (probably meaning go to hell). See also Romans 5:8, 1 John 4:10, and many other places. If there was any one "new" thing that Jesus focused on, it was to treat everyone with love, even your enemies. "But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return; and you will be sons of the Most High; for He Himself is kind to ungrateful and evil men." (Luke 6:35) The Spirit guides, with love and charity. (Do we really need a quote for this? Okay, fine: "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness." Galatians 5:22.)
In fact, evidently most of the Jews (certainly the Pharisees) had been reading the law improperly, too. "'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.' This is the great and foremost commandment. And the second is like it: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' On these two commandments depend all the law and the Prophets." (Matthew 22:37-40)
So, for Jesus it was all about love and kindness, even to the most evil. It was about focusing on the people, not on the particular sins that you might find most bothersome (because ... who are you? Are you without sin? Why are your proclivities more important?).
But, what about homosexuality? With all of the modern focus on it, surely Jesus speaks out against it forcefully, right? Errr ... No. He doesn't mention it. Ever. There are 6 passages (3 OT, 3 NT) that mention homosexual acts -- the notion of sexuality didn't really exist then, so it would have been strange indeed if sexual preference had been discussed. None of those mentions are by Jesus. (And at least plausible arguments can be made that loving same-sex relationships were never intended to be covered. See, for instance, http://www.upworthy.com/every-biblical-argument-against-being-gay-debunked-biblically?g=2&c=go1 .) So, no red text ever mentions anything close to homosexuality.
Abortion? Nope. Again, this is never mentioned by Jesus. In fact, it is EXTREMELY difficult to use a biblical argument to say that abortion is murder. The text distinguishes the two. If you are interested in a more detailed discussion of this, see the my blog about how once can decide what one thinks about the law and abortion: http://amusingbeam.blogspot.com/2011/10/how-to-decide-what-you-think-about-law.html. Again, the embodiment of the New Covenant never mentions abortion.
Sexual immorality? Well, we know that Jesus told the woman taken in adultery to go and "sin no more." That seems a pretty bland statement, though; it isn't even directed at the particular sin for which she was accused. Indeed, he explicitly does NOT condemn her (John 8:11). Is he concerned with sexual immorality? Yes, the teachings are to not be sexually immoral (Matthew 5:32). But he wants you to be concerned with your OWN immorality, NOT with others'. The text is pretty clear, emphasized rhetorically by how he keeps saying what YOU should do, not what your BROTHER should do. Planks and slivers, Grasshopper.
What does he say about forcing others to be moral, or about stopping evil people? "But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." (Matthew 5:39-40).
He does tell us NOT to take oaths, by the way (Matthew 5:34-37). So swearing on the Bible is explicitly banned. Where is all the consternation about presidential oaths? About oaths in court rooms?
Oh, but wait -- there is another group that Jesus finds very, very suspicious: the rich. If any group is blasted more than the Pharisees, it's the rich. Remember the story of the rich guy who asked Jesus how to get into heaven (Mark 10:17-25)? This guy had observed all the law, his entire life, and Jesus acknowledged that. There was just one more thing. "You lack one thing: go, sell all that you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me." It was too much for the rich guy, who had some really cool stuff, evidently, because he was sorrowful and left. The disciples were shocked (shocked, I say!), and Jesus responded, "How difficult it will be for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God! .... It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God." Yeah, I've heard some people try to argue that the "Eye of the Needle" was a gate into Jerusalem, but ... really? Arguing an irrelevancy, because, this is about as explicit as you get. Here was a guy that had done all the right stuff EXCEPT he was wealthy, and Jesus says ... you have to give up your wealth to get into heaven. He didn't say it was literally impossible for the rich to get in. Maybe others could do it (though he didn't even imply that). It is definitely really, really hard.
So, why is that teaching so often ignored by many so-called "conservatives"? (Not all -- Mother Teresa, for instance, paid attention to it.) I say "so-called" because conserving something usually means sticking with the traditional values, and it seems to me difficult to imagine something more conservative in the Christian tradition than the suspicion of the rich. The first shall be last, and the last first.
A quick clarification: While I am giving examples of conservatives here, this same difficulty happens when I speak with left-leaning Christians who espouse a scriptural approach, yet deal in anger, blame, and judgment. The problem is one of cognitive dissonance -- it's like saying that you believe that the NFL rules are the perfect set of rules for the game of football, then you focus on when other players make horse collar tackles ... but you aren't the ref, you're a player, and maybe you should be trying to get a touchdown.
So, Jesus talks a lot about love and charity as positives, and about hypocrisy and wealth as negatives. He doesn't mention abortion or homosexuality at all. He didn't attempt to control people's morality through the law -- that sort of theocracy he left to Muhammad. He COULD have had a kingdom on Earth, right? But he chose to give unto Cesar what was Cesar's, and to try to change people's minds through reason driven by love. To me, his focus should be important to those Christians who believe that Christ was accurately depicted in the gospels ('cause ... you know ... hypocrisy is bad).
Don't miss the forest for the trees
I'm not here making the argument that homosexuality is okay, or that abortion is okay, or that being rich is bad. I'm not trying to say that we should allow polygamy just because that would be more consistent with the holy people of the Bible. I'm not even saying that the oaths Christians take in court are bad (though I did somewhat suggest it, to be honest). So, if you disagree with what you perceive as my stances on those subjects, realize that my point is different.
What I am saying is that those who use Christianity as an excuse to bludgeon others -- especially, but not limited to, those that say they believe in fundamental readings of -- are being inconsistent with the most basic teachings of Jesus, and it is very difficult to even know where to start to have a discussion on how to address the real problems our communities face. If you truly believe what Jesus would do is important as a perfect example ... can you imagine him making blanket assertions that all liberals/conservatives/gay/straight/white/black/whatever were stupid? That imply that poor people deserve to be poor, if only because they are stupid? Can you honestly say that you feel that your Christianity is driving you to make those statements?
Bringing it back around
I decided a few years ago that I would stop "ceding the field" to those who speak with apparent authoritativeness on moral issues, often making out-of-context allusions to Christian scripture to support their (IMO) often-judgmental stances. I even have friends and family who actually think that, to be a moral person, you MUST be Republican and conservative. This sort of thinking is, at best, arrogant presumption -- at worst, it is dangerous because it creates an us/them dichotomy. I enjoyed President Clinton's recent speech at the DNC, nominating President Obama as the Democratic nominee, not simply because it was a lucid, pithy depiction of the state of the union, but also because it explicitly decried the atmosphere of anger and intolerance in Congress. He talked about how he had never learned to hate conservatives, and I have to agree. Many of my close friends have fundamentally different ideas on the role of government and on the importance of various social issues ... yet they are close friends. If you donate hundreds of dollars a month to a Haitian school to feed the children, build houses in Mexico, feed the hungry and hand out school supplies in your local community, and are a foster parent ... we can talk. We have similar values, and we only differ over mechanisms. You are a loving, positive human, obviously using your concept of the Spirit as your guide. Conservative or liberal, I admire you. (This example was a conservative.)
So, I get that there are principled ways to think that many of our government programs are not effective, or that it is not the government's business to do certain things. Jesus, for instance, thought morality should be individual. However, I frankly think it ludicrous that the programs designed to help the poor, the weak, the sick, the young, the elderly, or anyone else are so often attacked AS IF the very idea of helping is a bad one. It seems to me that most of those conversations should begin with a conservative saying something like, "You know, you have a really good point. I've investigated the problem of the poor, and I realize that there is a large minority of them that have mental conditions that, if not properly addressed, make it virtually impossible to get a job. I realize that Christ did not say to only help the poor that *I* think are worthy, and I think we should be helping all of them. My problem is with the mechanism -- churches and civic organizations should be doing this work, and that's why I help head my church's community outreach program." THAT sort of conservative has my full-throated, right-on support; we can work together to find ways where government can help, and where it cannot. We want the same things.
But when I get emails or see crazy Facebook postings from Christians about the government being thieves, I wonder ... have they read about how Jesus said to respond to that? When I see "blame the victim" postings that imply that everyone on Welfare is worthless and a conniving non-worker, and they just want MY money, I think ... how is this the Christian response? Degrading a person and coveting worldly possessions?
This doesn't mean that I have rose-colored glasses and think that people don't abuse the system. They do. This doesn't mean that I don't think that we have created perverse incentives for single women to have more children with the benefit of a partner to help, or to avoid working because it just doesn't pay when the government checks come in with no effort besides a few small lies, or ... any of those things. We have moved well beyond a workable notion of personal responsibility, and much closer to a notion of entitlement, and good portion of the blame there should be laid at the feet of well-meaning, yet paternalistic, do-gooders. I AGREE.
I can talk to people who say things like my hypothetical conversation starter above. And I can help those people talk to the liberals who are feeding the poor and think the government should be spearheading that effort. And, together, we can work on the unending problem of the poor, the weak, and those who cannot imagine what the promise of a right to pursue happiness could possibly mean.
But those that spread anger and blame, that focus on their favorite sins and ignore the ones that were actually spoken of by the incarnation of the one that they say they believe is the embodiment of Truth and the New Covenant ... those people are tough to talk to. To me, that approach is immoral in precisely the same way that Jesus said the Pharisees were immoral: it's hypocritical, and it uses a claim of religious authority to increase one's own power and prestige at the expense of others.
I'll keep trying to connect, though. I keep finding more and more areas where I was previously certain, and yet now I think very differently. So I could be wrong here, too. Probably the only way I will figure that out is having open discussions with people who disagree with me.
I'm glad I live in a country and a time where all this is possible. I'm happy that there are well-meaning conservatives, liberals, and independents who are loving, helpful people that want many of the same things.
What do you think?
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!
When you read the Bible, many have noted the change in tone from the Old Testament to the New Testament. While the Father is prone to bouts of anger (think the flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, etc.), Jesus is much more often overtly nice, or, when not nice, he is often aimed at changing the minds of his audience instead of punishing them. One group, though, gets his full-throated ire: The Pharisees.
Why? Because they were hypocrites. It was not that they didn't know the law -- it was that they focused on how others practiced it. People should still follow the law (at least, the Jews Christ was talking to, see Matt 23:3), but each person should focus on how he or she, as an individual person, follows it, not on how others do so.
Now, of course, part of the reason is that the law is fulfilled (see Matt 5:17-18). Because there are still moral strictures that apply, however, a more important part is that actions are to be governed by the Spirit, in particular through love. This is the New Covenant (see, for example, Jeremiah 31:31-33; in the NT, see, for example, all of Romans 2). When faced with an adulteress and a group of Pharisees, instead of sitting in judgment, Jesus implied that only those without sin should pass judgment (John 8:7). And, even though Jesus's judgments are always right, even HE does not judge (John 8:15-16). (For some, this example may not carry weight, as a large number of biblbical scholars believe this story was not in the original texts, see http://amusingbeam.blogspot.com/2012/07/problem-with-fundamentalism-part-2.html ; I hope the other examples suffice.)
The upshot of this is that Jesus very rarely is angry at anyone unless they are judging (I know, there are some notable exceptions, like people with withered hands, demons, those keepings kids from being healed ... fig trees). To me, it seems that much of his anger is directed at anyone who uses the power of the church to bring someone further from the Father.
Another way to think about this is to say that the ability to judge is not granted on a sin-by-sin basis. Simply because you do not commit adultery does not mean that you can judge an adulterer. Simply because you do not murder or covet your neighbor's wife (or--and I hope we can all agree exprapolation is appropriate here--her husband) does not mean you can judge those that do. Jesus's statement appears to say that you have to be without ALL sin before you have the capacity to judge ... and EVEN THEN you shouldn't -- that's not part of your role as a human, as Jesus himself noted that even though he would ALWAYS judge correctly, he didn't judge. Want more examples? Try these: Luke 6:37; Romans 14:1-23; 1 Corinthians 4:1-21; John 8:7; Matthew 5:22. (There are others.)
Now, there are some verses that appear to complicate this. Matthew 18:15-17 is a good example. It talks about how to handle someone who sins against you. You talk to him; if that doesn't work, you get a couple of brothers from the Church, and talk to him again; if that doesn't work, you all go to the Church and lay it before them. Finally, if all that doesn't work, you "treat him like a Gentile or a tax collector." How does Jesus treat those people? As fellow humans who must be brought into the fold of belief, NOT as evil pariahs. We can be pretty sure of this interpretation when we continue to the parable of the unforgiving servant (Matthew 18:21-35), which ends up saying that we better forgive everyone their slights against us because the Father will be forgiving ALL of our slights, which amounts to way more than any one person can ever do to us.
Other "go ahead and judge" portions of the Bible end up with similar probable interpretations. 1 Corinthians 6, for example, says don't sue each other at all -- it's better to suffer a wrong. But, if you HAVE to sue each other, use the Church to handle your grievances, not the court system. But, note that this is handling GRIEVANCES -- in other words, someone doing something that actually hurts you, not simply a person sinning with no consequences toward you. And, remember, the best response (according to Paul) is to LET IT HAPPEN. Suffer the wrong.
Where does Jesus put weight?
The New Covenant is about love. As Paul said (and I paraphrase), three virtues remain: faith, hope, and love... and the greatest is love. (1 Corinthians 13:13). According to John, as we all know, God loved the world so much that he gave his unique Son ("only begotten" is pretty, but a bad translation) to death so that believers would not "die" (probably meaning go to hell). See also Romans 5:8, 1 John 4:10, and many other places. If there was any one "new" thing that Jesus focused on, it was to treat everyone with love, even your enemies. "But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return; and you will be sons of the Most High; for He Himself is kind to ungrateful and evil men." (Luke 6:35) The Spirit guides, with love and charity. (Do we really need a quote for this? Okay, fine: "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness." Galatians 5:22.)
In fact, evidently most of the Jews (certainly the Pharisees) had been reading the law improperly, too. "'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.' This is the great and foremost commandment. And the second is like it: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' On these two commandments depend all the law and the Prophets." (Matthew 22:37-40)
So, for Jesus it was all about love and kindness, even to the most evil. It was about focusing on the people, not on the particular sins that you might find most bothersome (because ... who are you? Are you without sin? Why are your proclivities more important?).
But, what about homosexuality? With all of the modern focus on it, surely Jesus speaks out against it forcefully, right? Errr ... No. He doesn't mention it. Ever. There are 6 passages (3 OT, 3 NT) that mention homosexual acts -- the notion of sexuality didn't really exist then, so it would have been strange indeed if sexual preference had been discussed. None of those mentions are by Jesus. (And at least plausible arguments can be made that loving same-sex relationships were never intended to be covered. See, for instance, http://www.upworthy.com/every-biblical-argument-against-being-gay-debunked-biblically?g=2&c=go1 .) So, no red text ever mentions anything close to homosexuality.
Abortion? Nope. Again, this is never mentioned by Jesus. In fact, it is EXTREMELY difficult to use a biblical argument to say that abortion is murder. The text distinguishes the two. If you are interested in a more detailed discussion of this, see the my blog about how once can decide what one thinks about the law and abortion: http://amusingbeam.blogspot.com/2011/10/how-to-decide-what-you-think-about-law.html. Again, the embodiment of the New Covenant never mentions abortion.
Sexual immorality? Well, we know that Jesus told the woman taken in adultery to go and "sin no more." That seems a pretty bland statement, though; it isn't even directed at the particular sin for which she was accused. Indeed, he explicitly does NOT condemn her (John 8:11). Is he concerned with sexual immorality? Yes, the teachings are to not be sexually immoral (Matthew 5:32). But he wants you to be concerned with your OWN immorality, NOT with others'. The text is pretty clear, emphasized rhetorically by how he keeps saying what YOU should do, not what your BROTHER should do. Planks and slivers, Grasshopper.
What does he say about forcing others to be moral, or about stopping evil people? "But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." (Matthew 5:39-40).
He does tell us NOT to take oaths, by the way (Matthew 5:34-37). So swearing on the Bible is explicitly banned. Where is all the consternation about presidential oaths? About oaths in court rooms?
Oh, but wait -- there is another group that Jesus finds very, very suspicious: the rich. If any group is blasted more than the Pharisees, it's the rich. Remember the story of the rich guy who asked Jesus how to get into heaven (Mark 10:17-25)? This guy had observed all the law, his entire life, and Jesus acknowledged that. There was just one more thing. "You lack one thing: go, sell all that you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me." It was too much for the rich guy, who had some really cool stuff, evidently, because he was sorrowful and left. The disciples were shocked (shocked, I say!), and Jesus responded, "How difficult it will be for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God! .... It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God." Yeah, I've heard some people try to argue that the "Eye of the Needle" was a gate into Jerusalem, but ... really? Arguing an irrelevancy, because, this is about as explicit as you get. Here was a guy that had done all the right stuff EXCEPT he was wealthy, and Jesus says ... you have to give up your wealth to get into heaven. He didn't say it was literally impossible for the rich to get in. Maybe others could do it (though he didn't even imply that). It is definitely really, really hard.
So, why is that teaching so often ignored by many so-called "conservatives"? (Not all -- Mother Teresa, for instance, paid attention to it.) I say "so-called" because conserving something usually means sticking with the traditional values, and it seems to me difficult to imagine something more conservative in the Christian tradition than the suspicion of the rich. The first shall be last, and the last first.
A quick clarification: While I am giving examples of conservatives here, this same difficulty happens when I speak with left-leaning Christians who espouse a scriptural approach, yet deal in anger, blame, and judgment. The problem is one of cognitive dissonance -- it's like saying that you believe that the NFL rules are the perfect set of rules for the game of football, then you focus on when other players make horse collar tackles ... but you aren't the ref, you're a player, and maybe you should be trying to get a touchdown.
So, Jesus talks a lot about love and charity as positives, and about hypocrisy and wealth as negatives. He doesn't mention abortion or homosexuality at all. He didn't attempt to control people's morality through the law -- that sort of theocracy he left to Muhammad. He COULD have had a kingdom on Earth, right? But he chose to give unto Cesar what was Cesar's, and to try to change people's minds through reason driven by love. To me, his focus should be important to those Christians who believe that Christ was accurately depicted in the gospels ('cause ... you know ... hypocrisy is bad).
Don't miss the forest for the trees
I'm not here making the argument that homosexuality is okay, or that abortion is okay, or that being rich is bad. I'm not trying to say that we should allow polygamy just because that would be more consistent with the holy people of the Bible. I'm not even saying that the oaths Christians take in court are bad (though I did somewhat suggest it, to be honest). So, if you disagree with what you perceive as my stances on those subjects, realize that my point is different.
What I am saying is that those who use Christianity as an excuse to bludgeon others -- especially, but not limited to, those that say they believe in fundamental readings of
Bringing it back around
I decided a few years ago that I would stop "ceding the field" to those who speak with apparent authoritativeness on moral issues, often making out-of-context allusions to Christian scripture to support their (IMO) often-judgmental stances. I even have friends and family who actually think that, to be a moral person, you MUST be Republican and conservative. This sort of thinking is, at best, arrogant presumption -- at worst, it is dangerous because it creates an us/them dichotomy. I enjoyed President Clinton's recent speech at the DNC, nominating President Obama as the Democratic nominee, not simply because it was a lucid, pithy depiction of the state of the union, but also because it explicitly decried the atmosphere of anger and intolerance in Congress. He talked about how he had never learned to hate conservatives, and I have to agree. Many of my close friends have fundamentally different ideas on the role of government and on the importance of various social issues ... yet they are close friends. If you donate hundreds of dollars a month to a Haitian school to feed the children, build houses in Mexico, feed the hungry and hand out school supplies in your local community, and are a foster parent ... we can talk. We have similar values, and we only differ over mechanisms. You are a loving, positive human, obviously using your concept of the Spirit as your guide. Conservative or liberal, I admire you. (This example was a conservative.)
So, I get that there are principled ways to think that many of our government programs are not effective, or that it is not the government's business to do certain things. Jesus, for instance, thought morality should be individual. However, I frankly think it ludicrous that the programs designed to help the poor, the weak, the sick, the young, the elderly, or anyone else are so often attacked AS IF the very idea of helping is a bad one. It seems to me that most of those conversations should begin with a conservative saying something like, "You know, you have a really good point. I've investigated the problem of the poor, and I realize that there is a large minority of them that have mental conditions that, if not properly addressed, make it virtually impossible to get a job. I realize that Christ did not say to only help the poor that *I* think are worthy, and I think we should be helping all of them. My problem is with the mechanism -- churches and civic organizations should be doing this work, and that's why I help head my church's community outreach program." THAT sort of conservative has my full-throated, right-on support; we can work together to find ways where government can help, and where it cannot. We want the same things.
But when I get emails or see crazy Facebook postings from Christians about the government being thieves, I wonder ... have they read about how Jesus said to respond to that? When I see "blame the victim" postings that imply that everyone on Welfare is worthless and a conniving non-worker, and they just want MY money, I think ... how is this the Christian response? Degrading a person and coveting worldly possessions?
This doesn't mean that I have rose-colored glasses and think that people don't abuse the system. They do. This doesn't mean that I don't think that we have created perverse incentives for single women to have more children with the benefit of a partner to help, or to avoid working because it just doesn't pay when the government checks come in with no effort besides a few small lies, or ... any of those things. We have moved well beyond a workable notion of personal responsibility, and much closer to a notion of entitlement, and good portion of the blame there should be laid at the feet of well-meaning, yet paternalistic, do-gooders. I AGREE.
I can talk to people who say things like my hypothetical conversation starter above. And I can help those people talk to the liberals who are feeding the poor and think the government should be spearheading that effort. And, together, we can work on the unending problem of the poor, the weak, and those who cannot imagine what the promise of a right to pursue happiness could possibly mean.
But those that spread anger and blame, that focus on their favorite sins and ignore the ones that were actually spoken of by the incarnation of the one that they say they believe is the embodiment of Truth and the New Covenant ... those people are tough to talk to. To me, that approach is immoral in precisely the same way that Jesus said the Pharisees were immoral: it's hypocritical, and it uses a claim of religious authority to increase one's own power and prestige at the expense of others.
I'll keep trying to connect, though. I keep finding more and more areas where I was previously certain, and yet now I think very differently. So I could be wrong here, too. Probably the only way I will figure that out is having open discussions with people who disagree with me.
I'm glad I live in a country and a time where all this is possible. I'm happy that there are well-meaning conservatives, liberals, and independents who are loving, helpful people that want many of the same things.
What do you think?
Good points about the Pharisees and rich folks. I do believe Jesus had especially harsh words for these.
ReplyDeleteBut we must be very cautious about judging what is *not* sin! The bad news is that there are many ways to sin, and we are all prone to them. (Matthew 15:18-20)
We are especially warned about causing the young to sin (perhaps by changing what we call sin and what we call acceptable?) We should be careful about this. (Matthew 18:6)
The really good news is that most sins are forgiveable! Even the nasty ones, apparently. But there is one mysterious category that is not. Some interpret this special sin to be atheism and the discouragement of spirituality. (Matthew 12:31-32)
I know I'm a sinner. I hear this from the pulpit every week too. (Not that I'm a sinner, but that the congregation is full of them.) It might be possible the contemporary danger isn't sinning in especially bad ways, but rather fooling ourselves and others into thinking it's not sin.