Jesus and The Reverend Wright

It’s disturbing reflection of evangelical America that diversely different political figures like Reverend Wright and Pat Robertson both take up huge chunks of media time under the same banner of Christianity.

After all, it’s difficult to argue they speak on behalf of the founder of Christianity. The Reverend Wright called upon God to damn America; Jesus did not request the same for the oppressive Roman overlords of his day. Unlike Pat Robertson’s solution for Hugo Chavez, Jesus never advocated the assassination of leaders of foreign nations.

This problem begins with the unspoken assumption that American evangelicals must be of one political stripe to make a difference. Gather as many blacks under Reverend Wright as you can, or as many whites under Pat Robertson and his former Moral Majority, and let the best army of Christian soldiers win. In this landscape, faith is replaced by politics. Conservatives are Christians. Liberals are the anti-Christ.

The gospel accounts show a non-political Jesus who lived intentionally concerned with the common good of all people. As for banner leadership, Jesus pointedly refused to lead his people against their oppressors, showing a great understanding of politics. Especially when it comes to faith.

Living where cross-shaped shadows of history’s most infamous torture instrument were a constant reminder of Roman rule, Jesus well knew that on the kingdom of earth, power is gained by the sword. He knew too, the pitfalls of grasping that sword, used so literally in his name during the Crusades, and metaphorically in recent presidential elections through the leverage of votes.

In contrast to the Christian right, Jesus did not expect a secular world to live by biblical standards. Jesus never imposed his faith, only invited people to follow. He transformed society by transforming individuals, not legislation. The irony is that the institution Jesus did criticize and hold to biblical standards was the religious establishment that eventually slaughtered him -- for asserting that it had failed God miserably in pursuit of politics and power.

This is not to imply that Christians, as individuals, should remove themselves from the democratic process, in voting or running for office or even in leading groups with a common political cause. But marching beneath a Christian banner begins to set up an exclusionary group — ‘either you’re Christian and you’re on our side, or you oppose us, thus you can’t be a Christian’ — with results readily seen in the polarization of American politics. There are liberal Christians who want to help the poor and fight for justice.

The greatest danger in the politicalization of faith awaits for the day it might have total success, a danger that America’s founding fathers foresaw by establishing the separation of church and state. Horrible and godless as a democracy might appear at times to the religious right in America, it is still far more inviting than the reign of the Christian Inquisition or the current Muslim theocracy in Iran.
_______________________________________________

Sigmund Brouwer is the author of Broken Angel (WaterBrook Press, May 2008), a novel that explores themes of religion and political control. For more information on the novel, visit Sigmund’s website, brokenangelsong.com.