BWA6067@TAMAGEN (01/16/90)
I'm not sure who it was that posted this to CHRISTIA, because
I deleted the post in some indignation. I now wish that I
had not deleted it, but that's the way it goes.
I seem to recall that this someone who raked Republicans in
general over the coals later said that he/she singled
Republicans out in order to show the foolishness of singling
a particular group out. While I appreciate the apparent
sincerity of that particular disclaimer, I wonder if it
really indicates the kind of mindset that the original
accusation suggested--that Republicans have no sensitivity
for the poverty-stricken. The context of the letter further
suggested that the author was dumbfounded that anyone who
claimed to be a Christian could *possibly* espouse certain
conservative views that happen to be mainly Republican views.
The implication was that anyone who espoused such views was
completely devoid of the kind of compassion that Jesus would
desire of us.
I'm not terribly interested in defending Republican political
views as a response to that letter. (I'll defend them in
private, if anyone's interested.) I'm not interested at the
moment in defending *any* political point of view in
particular. But I am interested in addressing the somewhat
arrogant spirit that causes one to make such generalizations
and to link one's general political bent with one's
dedication to Jesus Christ. It is highly insulting to hear
anyone say of anyone else, "I don't see how you can be a
Christian and still be a member of the _______ (insert party
of your choosing) party." Regardless of the political
affiliation of the object of that statement, that statement
suggests the following:
1. There is only one political party that can
possibly hold all of the "proper" views. Once this
principle is violated, i.e. a Republican view is
proper on issue A and a Democrat view on issue B,
the original statement falls.
2. The speaker is himself Biblically correct on all
political issues. This is a stance that can be
proven neither correct nor incorrect, but it can be
said with logical certainty that no two "Christians"
are BOTH Biblically correct (except for some
statistical coincidence). Consequently, the
original statement limits the number of politically
correct Christians to right around unity.
We must wean ourselves from the tendency to generalize that
one political view is necessarily the "correct" one from a
Biblical point of view. The Bible is essentially apolitical,
except in the sense that it requires us to be subject to the
governing authorities (Romans 13). It is possible for there
to be two EQUALLY VALID yet DIFFERENT opinions on the same
issue (Romans 14), and I think we must conclude that due to
the apolitical nature of the Scriptures, the application of
that principle extends beyond "church matters" into the
political realm. We are given no other guidelines as to how
we should accomodate political differences among ourselves.
The exclusivity demonstrated by the statement in question
does little but to foster disunity in the body.
One last thought: how would you feel if the members of your
particular political party were called "airheads" or
"dunderheads?" I forget which term was used in the original
post, but it doesn't matter. In our efforts to purge the
damaging tendencies to "flame" one another, let us resolve
not to resort to cheap shots and name-calling. We all have
some worth before Jesus; let us recognize that in one another
and season our speech accordingly.
queue ball