On why being a Democratic conservative Christian just doesn't work
TIME editor Amy Sullivan is both a political liberal and an evangelical Christian. She has some thoughts on that combination- what some might call that paradox- here.
While as a Lutheran I have enough differences with the "evangelical" movement that I'm not comfortable bearing that label, I, too, was once a pro-life liberal Democrat. I, too, believed (and still do) that social justice is as much a biblical mandate as the defense of unborn human life, and that the dignity of persons who are homosexual is as important as the upholding of heterosexual marriage as the only human sexual relationship having divine approval. Trouble is, I got sick of having to vote to keep abortion legal every time I voted for social justice. And at last, I realized that social justice at any level isn't finally possible if even the "the least of these" are not afforded the dignity due members of our species, and even the unborn weak are left exposed to the predations of the strong.
Neither suicide nor assisting with suicide is legal in this country. But actively killing a non-terminal patient by starvation and dehydration is legal- I am not talking here about the withholding of actual medical treatment from a patient who is dying- if only hearsay evidence can be produced by those with the most to gain from the patent's death to the effect that the patient once expressed a desire to be assassinated if he or she ever reached such a condition.One cannot reconcile that with social justice, any more than one can reconcile abortion on demand with social justice. Not in a universe in which life is neither the possession of the living to do with as we please, nor the gift of society or the State, but something bestowed only by God and- at least in most circumstances- which only He has the right to take away.
I share Ms. Sullivan's longing to combine my pro-life convictions with a broader concern for social justice. The problem is that there can be no just society when "the least of these" are left to the predations of those who stand to benefit from their deaths, or even when our very selves are treated as personal possessions for which we are not responsible to God, to society, or to anyone else.
I long for the day when the Democratic party will revisit its commitment to death- and when the Republican party will become more committed to the notion that life might begin at conception, but does not end at birth. Until then, though, I can't walk the path Ms. Sullivan walks.I can't consent to the slaughter of "the least of these" even as a step toward establishing justice for others. I simply do not believe this to be a thing a Christian- or a decent human being- ought to do.
Oh. And more more thing: while I do not for a moment question the sincerity of Barak Obama's religious commitment, it's worth nothing that he is anything but an "evangelical." Sen. Obama is a member of the United Church of Christ- a denomination whose commitment to historic Christianity is hardly one of its defining characteristics. Somehow, the good senator's commitment to the insubstantial theology of a church body which ordains practicing homosexuals and does not require its ministers to confess the doctrine of the Holy Trinity does not reassure me that he is someone who shares my values.
HT: Real Clear Politics
While as a Lutheran I have enough differences with the "evangelical" movement that I'm not comfortable bearing that label, I, too, was once a pro-life liberal Democrat. I, too, believed (and still do) that social justice is as much a biblical mandate as the defense of unborn human life, and that the dignity of persons who are homosexual is as important as the upholding of heterosexual marriage as the only human sexual relationship having divine approval. Trouble is, I got sick of having to vote to keep abortion legal every time I voted for social justice. And at last, I realized that social justice at any level isn't finally possible if even the "the least of these" are not afforded the dignity due members of our species, and even the unborn weak are left exposed to the predations of the strong.
Neither suicide nor assisting with suicide is legal in this country. But actively killing a non-terminal patient by starvation and dehydration is legal- I am not talking here about the withholding of actual medical treatment from a patient who is dying- if only hearsay evidence can be produced by those with the most to gain from the patent's death to the effect that the patient once expressed a desire to be assassinated if he or she ever reached such a condition.One cannot reconcile that with social justice, any more than one can reconcile abortion on demand with social justice. Not in a universe in which life is neither the possession of the living to do with as we please, nor the gift of society or the State, but something bestowed only by God and- at least in most circumstances- which only He has the right to take away.
I share Ms. Sullivan's longing to combine my pro-life convictions with a broader concern for social justice. The problem is that there can be no just society when "the least of these" are left to the predations of those who stand to benefit from their deaths, or even when our very selves are treated as personal possessions for which we are not responsible to God, to society, or to anyone else.
I long for the day when the Democratic party will revisit its commitment to death- and when the Republican party will become more committed to the notion that life might begin at conception, but does not end at birth. Until then, though, I can't walk the path Ms. Sullivan walks.I can't consent to the slaughter of "the least of these" even as a step toward establishing justice for others. I simply do not believe this to be a thing a Christian- or a decent human being- ought to do.
Oh. And more more thing: while I do not for a moment question the sincerity of Barak Obama's religious commitment, it's worth nothing that he is anything but an "evangelical." Sen. Obama is a member of the United Church of Christ- a denomination whose commitment to historic Christianity is hardly one of its defining characteristics. Somehow, the good senator's commitment to the insubstantial theology of a church body which ordains practicing homosexuals and does not require its ministers to confess the doctrine of the Holy Trinity does not reassure me that he is someone who shares my values.
HT: Real Clear Politics
Comments
It makes sense for Christians to work within both political parties. Despite the obvious risks and potential ethics conflicts that Christians face in the cynical environment of politics, I don't think the cause of Christ has been well served by the widespread perception of one flawed party being more Christian than the other.
The Republican party, with all its faults, accepts the concept of ultimate truth and transcendent values. The Democratic party comes close to rejecting those concepts
as a matter of ideology.
As I implied in the post, I really wish being a pro-life Democrat was a realistic option. Unfortunately, though, that means accepting absolute ineffectuality on abortion and other life issues. In effect, to be a Democrat you have to effectively sacrifice your convictions in these areas.
At least there are those in the Republican party who aspire to be "compassionate conservatives," for whom one can vote without voting for social Darwinism. For myself, anyway, that means that in the Republican party at least I have a place to stand.
As a Democrat, I had to accept defeat on life issues from the git-go.