The "G" in GOP Is NOT "God"
Just because I've been hosting relatives, doing errands, dealing with graduation, etc., doesn't mean I'm not keeping up with the news. Far from it. I'm just glad I inherited low blood pressure from my mom, otherwise I'd be having an apoplexy every other day.
The latest is the Baptist pastor in North Carolina who expelled members from the church in retaliation for not voting for Bush. Fortunately, forty members of the congregation resigned in protest, and at this writing, the minister has been sent packing. Unfortunately, however, is a concerted push to make sure people like him never have to leave the pulpit again. A bill is being pushed in Congress to permit church ministers and leaders to take a political bent from the pulpit without fear of consequences; namely, having the IRS clamp down on all financial records and revoking non-profit status.
Ostensibly, the backers of this bill are trying to paint their legislation as non-partisan as possible, trying to woo even black churches into their camp. But it's pretty obvious the majority of church leaders who insist on politicizing their congregations are conservatives. The guy in North Carolina is an excellent case in point.
Even though I'm not particularly religious by any measure, I've always viewed houses of worship as places to celebrate God, G-d, Jehovah, Allah, Buddhist principles, Hindu deities, or whatever higher being/spirit parishioners believe in. A church comprises a community of fellow believers in faith, regardless of class, ancestry, race, sex, gender, or political beliefs. I've known plenty of couples where the wife was of one political party and the husband another, but they both belonged to the same church. The same is true of various relations within a family as well. To suddenly segregate people based on how they cast their ballots is at the very least, divisive and disruptive. To insist everyone within a congregation follow the political bent of its minister chills individual freedoms.
In the article, mention is made of "freedom of speech" on the part of ministers. I have nothing against men and women of the cloth participating in politics in their off-hours, or voting however they like. I do have a problem with people telling members of the congregation to leave the church because they didn't pull the lever the "right way." I do have a problem with groups passing out voter guides in churches before elections. I do have a problem with political coercion of any kind.
Yes, religion does grapple with moral issues, and these problems do end up as part of our political culture and discussion. But I think there is definitely a line between a moral view and a political view, and churches have a responsibility to respect that line. This is especially the case where you have influential religious leaders who hold the trust of their community. The political and cultural beliefs and values of a pastor may not be exactly the same ones held by everyone in the parish, regardless of shared faith. Yet a minister, pastor, or priest holds sway over their congregation; children within churches are taught to respect and value church leaders-- what's to keep these same church fathers and mothers from indoctrinating church youth? Shouldn't these children be allowed the freedom to think and discover for themselves their political values and principles? For that matter, shouldn't grown ADULTS be permitted to keep their own counsel without feeling pressured (or in the case of the NC brouhaha, feeling bullied)?
Another thing that really bugs me is the tussle over what "God wants." For that matter, "What the Founding Fathers would have wanted." Really, anything in this vein: making assumptions about what this person or that person or this group would have wanted. For example, all the nonsense that because JFK endorsed tax cuts (yes, there were tax cuts passed during his administration), and so he probably would have been ok with Bush's tax cuts (very highly doubtful, and Teddy was *not* amused!). Another example is co-opting Martin Luther King's speeches and twisting the meaning into some modern pronouncement on something that probably would not have been supported by King had he lived.
It's all in the same vein as the worn axiom, "What Would Jesus Do?" Claiming that "Jesus loves you" and then stating "God hates fags" in the same breath is not only a paradox, it's hypocritical. Calling on God in support of everything bothers me: how in the world do you *really* know what God would want? Sure, sure-- God speaks to you. But God also speaks to your neighbor, your co-worker, the bus driver, your pastor, your Congressman, our "president," and that guy in tattered clothes in the alley mumbling to himself. They all have their own idea of what God thinks, what God wants, what God would do. Who's to say they're right-- or that they're wrong?
For that matter, I think it's arrogant to assume that "God is on our side." Hundreds of thousands of people have said or thought this over the ages, and so have dozens of nations. Who remembers from their history lessons, "Glory, God, and Gold"? How many people have fought, killed, and died in the name of a higher deity? Do you really think breaking one of the Ten Commandments is the way to go? Ok, so you aren't into the Ten Commandments. How about the Golden Rule? "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." You're out there killing someone in the name of God-- would you want someone killing *you* in the name of God (or Allah, or Jehovah, or Vishnu, or whatever)? Going back to my original material, would you want someone telling you who to vote for? Even more so, would you want someone telling you that if you vote for "x" candidate, you need to repent?
I don't think God is a Republican. Or a Democrat, for that matter. I'm tired of the Republicans acting as if though God approves of everything they do. I'm tired of conservatives acting as if they're the only ones that are "with" Jesus. I know I hate hearing stuff like "Jesus loves you" when coupled with admonishments, threats, or condemnations. For a bunch of people that talk about Jesus, I think they draw more of their energy from the wrath of the Old Testament and not enough from the New Testament.
I'm sure many others have done this- have referred to the appropriate books and passages. I may just be adding another voice to the choir, preaching the same thing that's already been said. But I really think it wouldn't hurt people to take fifteen or twenty minutes, and go to the Book of Matthew, chapters 5, 6, and 7. The Sermon on the Mount is to me what Christianity is truly about. I think if people tried harder to really see what Jesus was preaching, perhaps we'd have a little more understanding in this intolerant world of ours.
The latest is the Baptist pastor in North Carolina who expelled members from the church in retaliation for not voting for Bush. Fortunately, forty members of the congregation resigned in protest, and at this writing, the minister has been sent packing. Unfortunately, however, is a concerted push to make sure people like him never have to leave the pulpit again. A bill is being pushed in Congress to permit church ministers and leaders to take a political bent from the pulpit without fear of consequences; namely, having the IRS clamp down on all financial records and revoking non-profit status.
Ostensibly, the backers of this bill are trying to paint their legislation as non-partisan as possible, trying to woo even black churches into their camp. But it's pretty obvious the majority of church leaders who insist on politicizing their congregations are conservatives. The guy in North Carolina is an excellent case in point.
Even though I'm not particularly religious by any measure, I've always viewed houses of worship as places to celebrate God, G-d, Jehovah, Allah, Buddhist principles, Hindu deities, or whatever higher being/spirit parishioners believe in. A church comprises a community of fellow believers in faith, regardless of class, ancestry, race, sex, gender, or political beliefs. I've known plenty of couples where the wife was of one political party and the husband another, but they both belonged to the same church. The same is true of various relations within a family as well. To suddenly segregate people based on how they cast their ballots is at the very least, divisive and disruptive. To insist everyone within a congregation follow the political bent of its minister chills individual freedoms.
In the article, mention is made of "freedom of speech" on the part of ministers. I have nothing against men and women of the cloth participating in politics in their off-hours, or voting however they like. I do have a problem with people telling members of the congregation to leave the church because they didn't pull the lever the "right way." I do have a problem with groups passing out voter guides in churches before elections. I do have a problem with political coercion of any kind.
Yes, religion does grapple with moral issues, and these problems do end up as part of our political culture and discussion. But I think there is definitely a line between a moral view and a political view, and churches have a responsibility to respect that line. This is especially the case where you have influential religious leaders who hold the trust of their community. The political and cultural beliefs and values of a pastor may not be exactly the same ones held by everyone in the parish, regardless of shared faith. Yet a minister, pastor, or priest holds sway over their congregation; children within churches are taught to respect and value church leaders-- what's to keep these same church fathers and mothers from indoctrinating church youth? Shouldn't these children be allowed the freedom to think and discover for themselves their political values and principles? For that matter, shouldn't grown ADULTS be permitted to keep their own counsel without feeling pressured (or in the case of the NC brouhaha, feeling bullied)?
Another thing that really bugs me is the tussle over what "God wants." For that matter, "What the Founding Fathers would have wanted." Really, anything in this vein: making assumptions about what this person or that person or this group would have wanted. For example, all the nonsense that because JFK endorsed tax cuts (yes, there were tax cuts passed during his administration), and so he probably would have been ok with Bush's tax cuts (very highly doubtful, and Teddy was *not* amused!). Another example is co-opting Martin Luther King's speeches and twisting the meaning into some modern pronouncement on something that probably would not have been supported by King had he lived.
It's all in the same vein as the worn axiom, "What Would Jesus Do?" Claiming that "Jesus loves you" and then stating "God hates fags" in the same breath is not only a paradox, it's hypocritical. Calling on God in support of everything bothers me: how in the world do you *really* know what God would want? Sure, sure-- God speaks to you. But God also speaks to your neighbor, your co-worker, the bus driver, your pastor, your Congressman, our "president," and that guy in tattered clothes in the alley mumbling to himself. They all have their own idea of what God thinks, what God wants, what God would do. Who's to say they're right-- or that they're wrong?
For that matter, I think it's arrogant to assume that "God is on our side." Hundreds of thousands of people have said or thought this over the ages, and so have dozens of nations. Who remembers from their history lessons, "Glory, God, and Gold"? How many people have fought, killed, and died in the name of a higher deity? Do you really think breaking one of the Ten Commandments is the way to go? Ok, so you aren't into the Ten Commandments. How about the Golden Rule? "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." You're out there killing someone in the name of God-- would you want someone killing *you* in the name of God (or Allah, or Jehovah, or Vishnu, or whatever)? Going back to my original material, would you want someone telling you who to vote for? Even more so, would you want someone telling you that if you vote for "x" candidate, you need to repent?
I don't think God is a Republican. Or a Democrat, for that matter. I'm tired of the Republicans acting as if though God approves of everything they do. I'm tired of conservatives acting as if they're the only ones that are "with" Jesus. I know I hate hearing stuff like "Jesus loves you" when coupled with admonishments, threats, or condemnations. For a bunch of people that talk about Jesus, I think they draw more of their energy from the wrath of the Old Testament and not enough from the New Testament.
I'm sure many others have done this- have referred to the appropriate books and passages. I may just be adding another voice to the choir, preaching the same thing that's already been said. But I really think it wouldn't hurt people to take fifteen or twenty minutes, and go to the Book of Matthew, chapters 5, 6, and 7. The Sermon on the Mount is to me what Christianity is truly about. I think if people tried harder to really see what Jesus was preaching, perhaps we'd have a little more understanding in this intolerant world of ours.
posted by Mr. Sandman | 5:09 PM
<< Home