My wife and I went and saw the play Inherit the Wind a little while ago. A friend of ours who we have both done many plays with was in it. It was an outstanding show which fictionalizes the Scopes Monkey trial. Our friend played Matthew Harrison Brady, the three time presidential candidate and adamant prosecutor of the teacher who broke the Tennessee law by teaching Darwin's theory of evolution.
As I was watching the play I wanted to know more about the real life characters and story, so I pulled it up on my Android. Isn't it great we live in a time where knowledge is instantly available? What I learned surprised me. The character, Matthew Harrison Brady, a deeply religious, famous high power lawyer, who so personally took issue with evolution being taught in a public school that he himself took the part of prosecutor, was portraying the real life William Jennings Bryan. Wikipedia says Bryan was a "dominant force in the liberal wing of the Democratic Party." So, what was a left wing Democratic Christian ideology is nowadays a conservative right wing Republican Christian ideology? This shocked me. How did ideologies move so far? I had heard before that the Democratic party used to be the party the Christian would go to but now it is the Republicans. This got me thinking more about that shift.
I have never understood the alignment of Christianity with the Republicans. While growing up it was explained to me that Republicans were the pro-business party and the Democrats were the pro-people party, protecting us from big business. Yes, I know those are simplistic categorizations but that basic teaching from my youth still plays a role in defining the parties. But even with a broader look at the parties, what platforms align better with Christian values? James 1:27 says "Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to
look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from
being polluted by the world." That sounds a lot like helping the poor and needy, a pro-people party's values.
Granted, our social welfare system is a mess and I believe it enables some people to live lives off of a system without returning anything to that system. It needs to be rethought and revised but at the same time, it does help many people who need the help. I have had friends and family who have been on food stamps and other programs to get them through rough times and now they are working again, paying taxes and supporting the system that supported them in a time of need. What a blessing that was for them. I quit teaching because it didn't pay enough (that is a whole nother topic) and went back to college and my wife went back to college at the same time. We got Pell grants and low interest student loans. And now I have a much higher salary and can give even more to the system that helped me take a positive step forward. What a blessing that was for me and my family. So the system can be used by the people that truly need it but it can be abused by some that don't. Sounds as humanly flawed as any system we have ever come up with.
When I ask Christians aligned with the Republican party why they support it, inevitably the first answer is abortion. I think abortion is a terrible thing also, and let's just make a blanket statement that abortion is something we should avoid and move to the next most popular answer I have heard from Christian Republicans: morality. Stop right there! Whose morality are we going to legislate? There are some white areas, murder, stealing, but it gets very grey very fast. If we are going to legislate morality then we can get to the point that burqas are required. That is a moral issue in many people's views so it is as valid to legislate that as it is to legislate on same sex marriage. But let's move to the third issues that the Christians I have spoken to give to align to the Republican party. Well, the list ends there. Many can't even give reasons other than emotional ones. "The Democrats are destroying the country." Refer back to reasons one and two for the how on that. This devalues the Republican party to a one issue party or a marginal two issue party. Personally, I like much of the Republican platform, I just don't like the Republicans. I like much of the Democratic platform, too and the Democrats are marginally more tolerable than the Republicans. Personally, I usually vote third party because of the senselessness of the main two parties.
The title of the play mentioned at the start comes from Proverbs 11:28. "He that troubles his own house shall inherit the wind: and the fool shall be servant to the wise of heart." As I see it, we have many calling themselves Republicans who are inheriting the wind. This presidential election is straining my understanding of human's ability to reason. The Democrats have Obama, United Church of Christ (aka: Christian) and Biden, Catholic (aka: Christian). The Republicans have Romney, a Mormon. I have plenty of friends and family who fall into the right wing conservative Christian category and up until recently, if you asked if Mormons were Christians the answer would have been an adamant "Hell no!" Now we have Paul Ryan, his VP running mate, who is a Catholic (aka: Christian) but a strong follower of Ayn Rand. Ayn Rand, an atheist, is know for a philosophy directly contrary to any Christian teaching. Take the sermon on the mount, turn it 180 degrees and you have Ayn Rands teachings. Yet this is who Paul Ryan sites as his main influence. More disturbing is that the conservative Christians are still on board with the Republicans and still calling Democrats immoral. The party helping the poor, orphans, widows, environment is the the immoral party and the party enabling the rich, driving a destructive energy policy for corporate gain, restricting personal rights is the moral party. Friends, we are inheriting the wind.
I do not pretend to be right or have all the answers. Where you see I am wrong please calmly and rationally explain why. I will truly listen to what you have to say. I encourage a civil discussion on this because I am beside myself in disbelief and would like to understand the rational driving what I see as insanity. Please avoid terms that set people off and just explain your position. If I have used terms that are offensive and may set you off please look past my ignorance and do a better job than I have of civil discourse. I look forward to having a deeper understanding.
Very interesting and well-thought out treatise. My only comment would be that I will be interested to see if any comments and IF they can do it n a rational manner.
ReplyDeleteThanks for reading and commenting, Steve. Also, I see you put this on facebook, so thanks for that. It is getting some very positive comments there. Hopefully we will get some of that here.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, I am a Democrat (not a liberal). I don’t always vote democrat, but if I am in the voting booth and I have to choose between 2 candidates I am not familiar with, I choose the democrat. For me, realizing I was a democrat was like realizing I was gay. I just could not buy into what the Republicans seemed to be selling (moral majority, questioning patriotism, government bad…).
ReplyDeleteIf I am not mistaken, Will, the puzzler is “Why are the majority of Christians Republican when Christian teachings seem to follow the democratic party philosophy?”
Government is the iconic ‘Bull in a China Shop’. – Sometimes when the government comes in to fix things that are broken, it breaks a lot of things that were not broken.
The government is far from functioning perfectly (but show me any big business that does).
Law’s have unintended consequences. – What we have to feed and shelter sex offenders?
Government Programs have unintended consequences. – Family legacies on welfare
Antidotal information gets more play and interest than the norm. - woman buying cigarettes with food stamps….
The moral issue of abortion versus the rights of women.
The restrictions of helping people the way we wish due to our own US Constitution (how much control (restriction of freedom)(drug testing, preventing pregnancy, forcing work), can we place on individuals.
The Democratic Party has taken on causes that do not agree with bible teachings (abortion, gay rights…)
I think the Republicans have done a great job in taking advantage of the above issues to bring Christians over to their side.
Do I think the Christians have made the right choice, No. I think they have made the easy choice. I think the Republicans have used tactics that apply more to emotions than logic (flag burning, socialism, un-Americanism, demonizing opponents…). They have taken complex social issues and simplified them to ‘one liner’ solutions that sound good on the surface, but do not hold up to the complex real world.
As always, Bob, you see things in an unique light. Great observations. I think you are right that our politics is emotional rather than rational. Steve was just talking about how tired he is of seeing the emotional side of politics on facebook.
DeleteThanks for a thought-provoking post. I'll join in a bit of discussion, for better or for worse. This is something that I had been thinking about myself. Let's see if I can limit myself to adding just one thought for right now.
ReplyDeleteDoes a Christian have to vote for a Christian candidate? My answer would be no. The purpose of government is to promote a peaceful and just society (cf. Romans 13:1-7). Because God has written his Law on all hearts (cf. Romans 2:15), one who is not a Christian can still be an able ruler if he or she has a good grasp on this natural law. Because we are speaking in terms of human government, this would mean that an able ruler should especially have a good grasp of the second table of the law, that is, service to the neighbor (cf. Matthew 22:39). With that in mind, a Mormon, for example, could make a very able ruler. Even though Mormons are not Christians, because they believe they are saved by their works, they tend to be very concerned about doing good for their neighbor, which would tend to make them a good ruler. Please don't mistake this as an endorsement for Mitt Romney. My point is simply that a non-Christian candidate may very well make an able ruler.
I would also argue that it follows closely with this that for a Christian to think that one political party is "Christian" and another is not would be a dangerous mistake.
I've probably already written more than I intended; I'll leave it at that and see where that takes us.
Tim,
DeleteThat is an interesting perspective. Thanks for adding it. You say, "service to the neighbor" is a quality of a good ruler. This is where I am confused by Christians supporting the Republican party. I don't see that coming from the Republicans. I see it coming imperfectly from the Democrats. Not being sarcastic or confrontational, I would be very interested in hearing how the Republican party is a "service to the neighbor."
Don't worry; I don't see you as being sarcastic or confrontational, and I hope I don't come across that way either. But I'm not trying to defend the Republican party. There are things that I think the Republicans do well; there are things that I think they don't do well. There are things that I think the Democrats do well; there are things that I think they don't do well. Surprisingly, a person can be a Christian and vote for a Republican. Equally surprisingly, a person can be a Christian and vote for a Democrat. Just as a Christian can vote for a non-Christian who is a Mormon, so can a Christian vote for a candidate who identifies himself as UCC, a denomination which allows for many non-Scriptural and therefore non-Christian beliefs.
DeleteWith all that being said, you did ask me how the Republican party serves its neighbor. If I'm bringing up a horse that has already been beaten to death, forgive me, but perhaps the abortion issue really is that big of a deal. There is one political party that thinks that it should not be legal to kill people who are still in the womb. I'd say that this is a very important service to the neighbor, especially when there is another political party that thinks that it should be legal to kill people who are still in the womb. As I stated earlier, a government exists to promote a peaceful and just society. That means it must protect its citizens. I'm running out of time and need to go home to my family, so I'll end simply by saying that the issue of protecting the life of each and every citizen is one not easily overlooked.
Tim, I really like and appropriate your comment. I started to reply to it directly and then wondered if I really want to get into an abortion discussion. I, in no way, want to minimize the topic. It is too important of an issue. I may feel the Republican party has become a one issue party to Christians but it is an extremely important issue which neither party is fixing.
DeleteTimothy,
DeleteI understand your perspective. I voted for the Republicans for many years based mostly on the issue of abortion. Eventually though I began to have major problems with what seemed to be a lack of concern among Republicans for life outside of the womb. This put me in a horrible moral quandary. What I eventually realized though was that while many Republicans say they are anti-abortion, they haven't changed anything at all. Just as many unborn children died during the Bush as did under Clinton. If you add all the innocent Iraqis and soldiers who died during a war we should not have been involved in under Bush, more innocent lives were lost total under the Bush regime than under the leadership of Democrat. It seems to me that the Republicans really like to use the issue of abortion to keep Christians voting for them, but the really aren't doing anything about it at all. Another thing to consider is that by blocking funding to programs which provide free birth control Republicans almost ensure that more women will seek abortions as a solution for unwanted pregnancies.
I really like your Mormon/Ayn Rand observation. :-) I hadn't thought of it that way, but you're right on. :-)
ReplyDeleteI think that it's interesting how the Republican party has changed over the last few years. I was reading an interview by a Republican state senator, who said when he got elected 15 years ago, he was considered a very conservative Republican. Since then, he hasn't changed anything about his views, nor the way he votes on anything, yet now he's considered a very liberal Republican, and he is expecting to be voted out of office this next time around.
It all makes me wonder about the sanity of a large number of the American population. *sigh*
Thanks Jackie. The Mormon/Ayn Rand thing really started to solidify a number of thoughts which were previously just floating around. The shift you point out is part of that.
Delete