Let’s Talk About The Common Good
Today’s topic comes from one of my readers. He called my attention to “A Call to Christians,” that was launched on Ash Wednesday with 300ish signatures from religious officials and influencers.
This document had gone completely under my radar. So, I was eager to know who wrote it and what they were calling Christians to do. After reading it thoroughly, I was unable to answer either question.
It was published anonymously. But the scuttlebutt is that Jim Wallis, “one of the 500 most influential people shaping policy in D.C.” was behind it. Wallis is a Washington insider who teaches woke religion at Georgetown University.
That makes sense. It reads like a DEI screed written by a bureaucrat for bureaucrats. In 1,860 words it says nothing in particular. But it uses plenty of highly-charged language.
“We call on all Christians to join us in greater acts of courage to resist the injustices and anti-democratic danger sweeping across the nation,” it declares. Wow! Who could be against courage? And who could not fail to stand against injustice and anti-democratic danger?
But it never names specific injustices - much less proves that they are, in fact unjust or unlawful. “A Call to Christians” only insinuates sins and leaves you to fill in the blanks.
Should you be so impertinent as to ask for actual sins that the Bible recognizes, or laws that are actually broken, you are told: “The architecture of democracy and the rights secured by the separation of powers are being eroded from within, while we are told to accept it as ‘law,’ ‘order,’ or ‘God’s will.’”
Deplorables are danged if they do and danged if they don’t. Justice is whatever the anonymous writer says it is. If you doubt that, and examine it in the light of the Bible, you must be a Christian Nationalist.
That is about the only thing that this anonymous screed is clear about: Christians should denounce “white Christian Nationalism,” whatever that is. It is unclear whether black Christian Nationalism is an acceptable alternative.
But while the “Call to Christians” frustratingly lacks specificity, that is par for the course. In the decade since the term “Christian Nationalism” first appeared, it has never been clearly defined. That fact, alone, marks it as a Gnostic shibboleth.
Gnosticism has a long history of co-opting Christian language to confuse those who are easily manipulated by slimy language. Since the time of the apostles, Gnostics have excelled in the cultural appropriation of Christian symbols to promote their own religion.
So, no. I won’t be signing the document. And it’s not because I approve of injustice or cruelty or hatred. On the contrary, it is precisely because I stand opposed to every enemy of the common good that I will continue to speak of God, country and family values.
Christians speak of these Biblical values not because they are good for Christians, but because they are good for everybody. Jesus made this plain just before His crucifixion.
“You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment,” said He. “And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets” (Matthew 22:37-40).
All people who really want to love their neighbor, must start with the love of God. And Christians who unabashedly love God in the public square do so out of deep love for neighbors that they have never met.
Those who are not Christians should not be telling them to sit down and shut up. Rather than dismissively labeling them as “Christian Nationalists,” why not make an actual argument that there is a better way to love your neighbor than the way that the God of the Bible commands.
That would require naming specific people and examining specific ideas - the very thing that “A Call to Christians” assiduously avoids.
After I had dizzied myself by trying to understand the word salad of “A Call to Christians,” I came across an article that was refreshing in its concrete clarity. Kathy Athearn, recently published “Should Christians Influence Politics?”
The contrast between these two writings is stark. Don’t take my word for it. Read them back-to-back and judge for yourself. Athearn’s concrete clarity makes the Gnostic vagaries of the anonymous writer look silly.
What shines through, above all, is that nobody - on either side of the argument - should be seeking political power in order to pit one neighbor against the other. Christians should be active in the public square not for their own sake, but for the common good.
The love of your neighbor knows no boundaries. It is not hermetically sealed off from religion any more than the love of your family is quarantined from the love of God.
Politics affect policy, policies affect people. A way to love my neighbor as I love myself is to search for, and elect, good politicians who will enact good policy for the good of the people. This, of course, starts with the local school board, library board, municipal council, and broadens to county commissioners, county sheriff, and so on.
An excellent look at how words shape our thoughts. Vague, condemnatory words allow me to [insert personal grievance here], and give permission for an irrational, uncontrolled response. Specific language, naming specific errors, calls for specific, rational corrections. One calls for chaos, the other for community; one foments violence, the other points the way to the chance for vibrant life. It’s easy to break things. It’s much more difficult to build.
Since you referenced the apostles, one can remember most of the riots around Paul’s ministry. One didn’t have to look too far under the rug to see who would profit from stirring up strife. In Ephesus, in Thessaloniki, in Jerusalem, someone, somewhere, had an agenda that usually included money, power, or political influence masquerading as religious fervor. There is nothing new under the sun.
Words like good mean what? It is important to let others know what is meant by words charged with emotional energy. And in value systems, there is a ranking of values. Some values have more value than others. Where does good fit? Greek philosophy is replete with attempts to define the good. And there is universal agreement that there are many goods, but disagreement about what should or should not be included in the value scale; even when there is agreement, the highest value on one scale is not necessarily the same as the highest value on the other. Plato and Aristotle agree that there is one good that ranks above all other good. For Aristotle, it roughly translates to something to be obtained for its own sake. For Plato, it is an ideological construct. For the Hebrew, it is life. Neighbor in Hebrew comes from the root word reflecting being chosen as a companion, not a location. Being chosen reflects a value structure. Somewhere in this choosing, we reflect values we would employ to choose a companion. Should we choose a companion whose values are antithetical to our own? Should we value, with love (assuming love is a value), a companion whose values, when acted upon, lead to our demise? Who then is our neighbor? What then is the common denominator of the good? Someone once said, "You are known by the company you keep." If you keep company with folks who would silence you, place you in bondage, or kill you, is your company neighborly?