There is another less obvious difference. The Parliament of Germany, the Bundestag, has two major parties. Presently the nation is being governed by “the Christian Democratic Union” (CDU). But there is also the Social Democratic Party (SPD) which most often stands to the left of the CDU It is unclear what the words “Christian” or “Social” means in terms of policy, since Germany is largely a secular society with no official state religion.
Here is my question. Is the US moving toward a two party system, one being the Christian Republican Party, and the other, the Social(ist) Democratic Party? Listening to the current crop of candidates running for President it is clear that the Republicans believe they control a very large block of evangelical Christians—a voting constituency they believe large enough to swing an election. The intra-party question is, which candidate is pious enough to hold their attention at least until November?
On the other hand one hears little conversation among Democrats about religion, and the party’s candidates operate with little attention given to evangelicals. Does this mean that we have a de facto European style system composed of a party that might as well have “Christian” in its name, and another party without that designation? Are Republicans much more Christian than Democrats? That depends on what you mean by the term “Christian.” If being a Christian means having beliefs about Jesus and his relationship to individuals thus securing personal salvation and a place in heaven, that probably would identify what most Republican presidential candidates either believe or want people to think they believe. In this way of thinking to be a Christian is based on doctrinal orthodoxy.
But what if being a Christian means more than not just believing things about Jesus. A generation ago many of the faithful wore a wristband that read, “WWJD?” What would Jesus do? Looking at Jesus this way was not to believe things about him or praise him, but rather to follow him. Clearly we today cannot say for sure what Jesus would do, or would have us do in certain specific circumstances. But we do have more than a hazy grasp on the ethic which formed the basis of his life and teachings.
We know he was dedicated to living non-violently and he majored in making peace with his enemies. We know how he treated foreigners, and how he dedicated his life to the poor, the outsiders and the despised. We know how he was terribly disturbed by economic inequality. We also know he cared deeply about the natural world.
Certainly both American political parties fall far short of following Jesus’ ethical stance or his vision of how God would have us live. The Democratic Party can no more be called “Christian” than the Republican Party. And yet listening to the candidates for President, it is crystal clear that the Republican candidates, who wax loudly about their Christian faith, are most often opposed to the way Jesus would have society shaped.
No, the Republican Party and its swarm of evangelicals cannot claim to be the haven for Christians or the answer to the question “WWJD?” However, on a number of issues facing the nation there are both Christians and serious non-Christians who more clearly are dedicated to the same ethical society rooted in Jesus’ view of the world. One does not need to be a Christian to share the world-view of Jesus, but to call oneself a Christian and be dedicated to the opposite may be a terribly distorted understanding of what He taught and who He was. That is really what the Pope had to say as he returned home from Mexico. Those whose political judgments move in the direction of the ethic Jesus embodied can just as honestly be called his followers as those who believe doctrines about him. And we can find them in both parties.
No comments:
Post a Comment