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