Recovering a hijacked faith

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-15-2003
Recovering a hijacked faith
1
Wed, 09-08-2004 - 8:28am
How did the faith of Jesus come to be known as pro-rich, pro-war, and

pro-American? What has happened? How do we get back to a historic,

biblical, and genuinely evangelical faith rescued from its

contemporary distortions?

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/

07/13/recovering_a_hijacked_faith?mode=PF

Recovering a hijacked faith

By Jim Wallis | July 13, 2004

MANY OF US feel that our faith has been stolen, and it's time to take

it back. A misrepresentation of Christianity has taken place. Many

people around the world now think Christian faith stands for

political commitments that are almost the opposite of its true

meaning. How did the faith of Jesus come to be known as pro-rich, pro-

war, and pro-American? What has happened? How do we get back to a

historic, biblical, and genuinely evangelical faith rescued from its

contemporary distortions?

That rescue operation is crucial today in the face of a social crisis

that cries out for prophetic religion. The problem is clear in the

political arena, where strident voices claim to represent Christians

when they clearly don't speak for most of us. We hear politicians who

love to say how religious they are but fail to apply the values of

faith to their leadership and policies.

When we take back our faith, we will discover that faith challenges

the powers that be to do justice for the poor instead of preaching

a "prosperity gospel" and supporting politicians who further enrich

the wealthy. We will remember that faith hates violence and tries to

reduce it and exerts a fundamental presumption against war instead of

justifying it in God's name. We will see that faith creates community

from racial, class, and gender divisions, prefers international

community over nationalist religion and that "God bless America" is

found nowhere in the Bible. And we will be reminded that faith

regards matters such as the sacredness of life and family bonds as so

important that they should never be used as ideological symbols or

mere political pawns in partisan warfare.

The media like to say, "Oh, then you must be the religious left." No,

and the very question is the problem. Just because a religious right

has fashioned itself for political power in one predictable

ideological guise does not mean those who question this political

seduction must be their opposite political counterpart.

The best public contribution of religion is precisely not to be

ideologically predictable or a loyal partisan. To always raise the

moral issues of human rights, for example, will challenge both left-

and right-wing governments who put power above principles. Religious

action is rooted in a much deeper place than "rights"-- that being

the image of God in every human being.

Similarly, when the poor are defended on moral or religious grounds,

it is not "class warfare," as the rich will always charge, but rather

a direct response to the overwhelming focus in the Scriptures, which

claims they are regularly neglected, exploited, and oppressed by

wealthy elites, political rulers, and indifferent affluent

populations. Those Scriptures don't simply endorse the social

programs of liberals or conservatives but make clear that poverty is

indeed a religious issue, and the failure of political leaders to

help uplift those in poverty will be judged a moral failing.

It is because religion takes the problem of evil so seriously that it

must always be suspicious of too much concentrated power --

politically and economically -- either in totalitarian regimes or in

huge multinational corporations that now have more wealth and power

than many governments. It is indeed our theology of evil that makes

us strong proponents of both political and economic democracy -- not

because people are so good but because they often are not and need

clear safeguards and strong systems of checks and balances to avoid

the dangerous accumulations of power and wealth.

It's why we doubt the goodness of all superpowers and the

righteousness of empires in any era, especially when their claims of

inspiration and success invoke theology and the name of God. Given

human tendencies for self-delusion and deception, is it any wonder

that hardly a religious body in the world regards the ethics of

unilateral and preemptive war as "just"? Religious wisdom suggests

that the more overwhelming the military might, the more dangerous its

capacity for self and public deception. Powerful nations dangerously

claim to "rid the world of evil" but often do enormous harm in their

self-appointed vocation to do so.

The loss of religion's prophetic vocation is dangerous for any

society. Who will uphold the dignity of economic and political

outcasts? Who will question the self-righteousness of nations and

their leaders? Who will question the recourse to violence and rush to

wars, long before any last resort has been unequivocally proven? Who

will not allow God's name to be used to simply justify ourselves,

instead of calling us to accountability?

In an election year, the particular religiosity of a candidate, or

even how devout he might be, is less important than how his religious

and/or moral commitments and values shape political vision and policy

commitments. Understanding the moral compass a candidate brings to

his public life and how his convictions shape his political

priorities is the true litmus test.

Jim Wallis is convener of Call to Renewal and executive director of

Sojourners.


© Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2004
Wed, 09-08-2004 - 10:24am
My feeling about this is because that is how the secularists want you to see all religion, especially Catholicism