David Kuo is the author of the New York Times best-selling memoir about faith and politics, Tempting Faith. Hanna Rosin is the author of God's Harvard: A Christian College on a Mission To Save the Nation and a contributing editor at the Atlantic. In Slate they have an interesting conversation about her book, which tells the story of "students at Patrick Henry College, a small, recently founded school designed to further the education of ambitious, home-schooled Christians."
Virtually all surveys show that 30 percent to 40 percent of Americans go to church once a week. There are a lot of evangelicals out there even if, as you point out, they lead lives that are virtually indistinguishable from other Americans when it comes to divorce, abortion, and the like. I've argued that part of the reason for that is the political obsession of many evangelical leaders, which has in turn seduced so many evangelicals. It is that obsession and seduction that is so beautifully and horribly laid out in God's Harvard. As you recounted over and over, there was no differentiation between Jesus and politics. There was the absolute understanding that to serve Jesus meant to grasp power and manipulate the political system for God's gain. Sadly, this isn't anything new. It is precisely the sort of thing that Jesus came to defeat.
About halfway through the book, something struck me. Not a single student quoted Jesus' sayings to you in justifying their politics. Their justification came from Old Testament admonitions about power. They didn't quote Jesus—at least as related in the book.
Why? It is because it would be impossible to quote Jesus urging young Christian men and women to tackle the political battlefield as if going unto war. It is because Jesus' commands have everything to do with sacrificially loving others and nothing to do with influencing the makeup of the U.S. Supreme Court.
I am not saying that Christians shouldn't have a political voice. They should. But they should do it as citizens with opinions in public policy and not as "Christians" presuming they have Jesus' answer to problems—because on virtually every position, they do not. It is perfectly possible to be a Bible-believing, Jesus-loving, born-again Christian and have different perspectives on everything from abortion to Iraq. And that perspective is what is missing from Patrick Henry.
Good Kuo quote:In my book, I wrote about some of the Patrick Henry kids campaigning for Jerry Kilgore, who ran against Tim Kaine for Virginia governor. Kaine is a Democrat, but he has a very convincing Christian testimony. On the campaign trail, he told the story of how a mission trip changed his life and made it impossible for him to support the death penalty. In a very pro-death-penalty state, this was a brave thing to do. I showed some of the kids interviews with Kaine in which he spoke in moving, sincere ways about his faith. When I asked if they would ever consider voting for him, they looked at me like I was asking if they would vote for Osama Bin Laden. It just would not penetrate that someone could be a Democrat and a good Christian.
This, you would say, is just further proof that politics is ruining them, and you're right. But I would not then draw the conclusion that they should just drop out. That whole cycle that evangelicals have followed for much of this century (Retreat. No! Storm the gates! Retreat. No! Storm the gates!) is just dysfunctional. It produces someone like James Dobson, who just about every six months barrels into Washington vowing to save it and then one month later leaves bitterly disappointed. He's done it for 30 years, and it doesn't work. It produces the worst of the home-school mentality, which teaches that you can go straight from your kitchen table to the White House and rescue America.
Engaging in politics has a moderating effect and makes you more sophisticated. If Christians don't drop out again, then here is my prediction for what will happen in the next election. Right now, candidates compete for the religious vote with their personal testimonies: Vote for me, because I found Jesus in 1974 when I was in the Amazon! etc. You write in your book about how moved you were by Bush's testimony about how he found Jesus and stopped drinking, and how that made you instinctively trust him. This time around, it will no longer be possible to buy them off with a story.
Given their dubious options in the upcoming Republican primary, they will have no choice but to select someone based on their position, not on their story...
You ended your note challenging me to show you that these kids can change. OK.
I've seen it among some men and women I know in their 20s who went to a very conservative Christian college and who came to D.C. to work in politics. Over the past several years, I've seen them grow in a church where the pastor says he knows they would welcome and love Hillary Clinton, were she to come to a service, as much as they would George W. Bush. I've actually seen them up on the altar surrounding, in loving prayer, a Democratic senator who also attends the church. And one of these guys e-mailed me the other day to say he had read Bill Clinton's new book and loved it—no matter how much he was appalled by that thought.
Interesting quote, via Rosin, from a graduate of "God's Harvard":
That's right. Jesus was intolerant. That is what happens when you read the gospels through the lens of one passage in the Gospel of John.I've gotta admit I've been a little bored with his constant love-peace-and-happiness-for-the-world mantra. Would have been a little spicier if you found someone that has more to say than, "Most of us evangelicals are just like you, Hanna, really! We like Bill & Hillary, too! We're tolerant and loving just like you!" I mean, that may true, but it kind of misses the point of your book - that there are people out there who believe that the convictions that stem out of their faith have direct consequences in their jobs, votes, positions, and principles.
As long as your faith is an ambiguous thing that's determined by your culture and personality and the parts of the Bible that you like best—that's fine with most liberals. But the moment your faith becomes grounded in a God that has revealed his opinions and principles in a document (the Bible) that people rally around, study, learn, and believe despite their personalities and personal convictions (which is the sort of "elite" evangelicals you hung around with at PHC)—you're dealing with a united force with a relatively united voice. So if you believe that being open-minded, curious, and tolerant (which is obviously how David Kuo defines love) are the highest virtues—then that other crowd is pretty scary.
So anyways, it's been interesting and intriguing to think about. I always have to wonder which Bible those guys read—I mean, Jesus was no action hero, but he did rebuke and revolutionize the lifestyles of people in every sphere—from military officers, to prostitutes, to businessmen, to fisherman, to governors, to children. He preached radical change of people's loyalties and demanded all-or-nothing of their opinions and alliangences. He was not very "loving" to most of the people he interacted with—if loving is defined as saying, "You can live how you want, and I'll live how I want," which is what Kuo seems to think—instead he was like, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." So, I think maybe Kuo should go back and read the Jesus stories again before he claims that Jesus is such a nice, tolerant guy. Jesus was lots of things, but "nice" and "tolerant" aren't really ever vibes I picked up on.
No comments:
Post a Comment