Sunday, July 24, 2005

DAY 5--GETTING TO THE POINT

It has been pointed out to me by a long-suffering reader of my blog over the past few days that I have been longwinded, radical and unclear as to my actual point. My apologies.

The posts of the past three days were supposed to function as mere preliminary steps to a much more basic point/plea.

I want the religious right to call off the juggernaut, bow out of politics and get back to the real Christian work of becoming Christ-like.

Why?

It seems clear to me that "taking America for Christ" has replaced "becoming Christ-like" as the proper manner of living the Christian Faith, for a majority of American Christians. Which makes perfect sense, as "taking America for Christ" requires only that an individual nod his head on Sunday or during Rush Limbaugh's broadcast, argue conservatism with liberal friends, and poke the right hole in a piece of paper every four years--which actions afford a great sense of self-satisfaction and self-righteousness, while offering the (elusive) promise of a quick fix to all society's woes.

Whereas "becoming Christ-like" requires death to self and humility, over the course of a lifetime.

It's no wonder the one method is more popular. But it's not working, and it won't work. This country will not change unless its people change, and its people will not change (certainly not in their hearts, where it counts) unless they see Christ's love and holiness instantiated in those who bear His name. Only an authentic Christianity can convince those outside to become authentic Christians.

Not that I have any objection to individual Christians pursuing political office. But I'd really like to see the political movement die--or at least direct its efforts in a more fruitful direction: inward.

4 comments:

TeaLizzy said...

Well said.
Thanks for coming to the point -- from a longsuffering reader. ;-)

Fr. A said...

As I said, Dad, I don't really have a problem with Christians in political office.

But I'm not sure what you're talking about when you refer to rights that have been eroded.

TeaLizzy said...

I have to agree with Dan. Definite erosion of rights has occurred since the Revolutionary War. But then so has serious abdication of responsibility, and since they invariably go together it was inevitable, although not necessarily excusable. Whether the government creates the problem by taking over the responsibilities that rightfully belong to citizens or the citizens create the difficulty by abdicating responsibilities to governments is probably a chicken and egg issue.
The real question lies more with where to tackle the problem, and I think both of you are right on this one. It has to be handled at the political end (the government has to back down--not that I necessarily believe this is possible, I'm afraid; I don't think I've ever seen any government in history do it, ever) or it won't be able to fly. At the same time, it has to be tackled at the grassroots end--if citizens don't pick up those responsibilities, both proactively and after the government (theoretically) drops them, they won't be met, and if they're critical enough, the government will have to step back in.
Case in point: welfare. Christians, socially minded persons, and members of any community should be the ones caring for the poor, not the government. They are on the spot and know the need, they don't have the red tape to fight, and it's fundamentally their responsibility. But they aren't doing it, and the government is trying and doesn't want to back down and a) abandon what good they're doing as well as b) losing some of its power structure.
I think it really all comes down to a fundamental breakdown of community, which is mostly unavoidable in a large, mobile, post-industrial society/nation-state. And now you know my political philosophy, why I'm skeptical about any theory for improving the government/society, and why, when my husband insisted on knowing what was wrong, I told him it started with the Industrial Revolution.

Fr. A said...

Ah...my bad.

I was talking about Christian rights in particular--loss of religious freedom, etc. Wasn't talking at all about the more general health of the nation.