Recovering a hijacked faith
Find a Conversation
| Wed, 09-08-2004 - 8:28am |
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
| Wed, 09-08-2004 - 10:24am |
