A partisan Jesus?
In a recent New York Times article, Gary Wills starts off by saying 'there is no such thing as a "Christian politics'" and that 'Jesus brought no political message or program'. I came across his piece via a discussion started by DonByrd on the Talk To Action forum. Wills says,
This is a truth that needs emphasis at a time when some Democrats, fearing that the Republicans have advanced over them by the use of religion, want to respond with a claim that Jesus is really on their side. He is not. ...
I haven't heard a lot of Democrats saying that. I've heard liberal Christians like Jim Wallis saying that that neither side of politics has it right, and challenging moderate and progressive people fo faith to take back the public square and deny the right its monopoly on religious language, which is a different proposition.
Anyhow, Wills goes on to make some good points about the differences between the Gospel and the social and economic programs of government:
The state cannot indulge in self-sacrifice. If it is to treat the poor well, it must do so on grounds of justice, appealing to arguments that will convince people who are not followers of Jesus or of any other religion. The norms of justice will fall short of the demands of love that Jesus imposes. A Christian may adopt just political measures from his or her own motive of love, but that is not the argument that will define justice for state purposes.
To claim that the state's burden of justice, which falls short of the supreme test Jesus imposes, is actually what he wills — that would be to substitute some lesser and false religion for what Jesus brought from the Father. Of course, Christians who do not meet the lower standard of state justice to the poor will, a fortiori, fail to pass the higher test. ...
Some may think that removing Jesus from politics would mean removing morality from politics. They think we would all be better off if we took up the slogan 'What would Jesus do?' ...
The Gospels are scary, dark and demanding. It is not surprising that people want to tame them, dilute them, make them into generic encouragements to be loving and peaceful and fair. If that is all they are, then we may as well make Socrates our redeemer.
It is true that the tamed Gospels can be put to humanitarian purposes, and religious institutions have long done this, in defiance of what Jesus said in the Gospels.
I think his conclusion is that every attempt to use the gospel to achieve humanitarian ends is doomed to fail as well as a rebellion against God. I would agree that this is true if we are discussing the abuse of religion (by either left or right) to further some political end. But I don't see how this leads to the conclusion that spiritual values are not important—if not essential—to a fully progressive political agenda. Or that political discourse and action cannot or should not arise directly from a set of spiritual values.
We are, after all, whole human beings. There should be no wall of separation in our hearts and minds—to live in such a way would be schizophrenic.
Wills is warning the left not to become like the religious right by distorting and 'taming' the gospel for pure political ends. But does he go too far when he implies that the gospel and faith cannot or should not inform action and politics from the left? Most mainstream Christians and Jews would say that they can and they must.
But we are reminded here that political platforms are not the same as spiritual values and that the two should not be equated. The justice provided by the state, while necessary, does not live up to the demands of love.
This equating of political and spiritual values, unfortunately, is exactly what the theocratic right does all the time. "God appointed George W. Bush president." "Marriage is the God-ordained union of one man and one woman for life." And so on. In their effort to bring about their vision of the kingdom of God on earth through whatever means necessary, they have forsaken the call of Jesus to radical discipleship (sell what you have and give the money to the poor, take up your cross and follow me) and replaced it with grand messianic (and for some, imperial) ambitions.
The difference, almost by definition, for liberal and progressive religious folk should be that we understand the necessity of the separation of church and state. One can not be allowed to control the other, even though it is (or at least should be) an important role of religion to hold the state to ever higher standards and to call its citizens and leaders to renewal, compassion and justice.
This view of the role of religion in the public sphere represents the prophetic, as opposed to pastoral or devotional, role of religion. But it has nothing to do with the attempts of any one group of religionists to impose their religious values on the rest of society through the machinery of the state.
The African-American civil rights movement is one of the greatest examples of this principle in action. Another example is the resistance of the Confessing Church to Nazi Germany. The prophetic principle is one that can only be fully embodied in a spiritual movement, but it needs social and political arms and legs in order to be fully articulated and brought forth. Politics can be renewed and made more just and compassionate as a result of its confrontation with a prophetic faith.
It would be cheap and dishonest to try to artificially inject religious values or language into liberal and progressive politics. But it would be refreshing to see an environment develop where deep spiritual values can be allowed to influence and inform policy making rather than being shut in the closet for fear of alienating the extreme left. When liberals cannot talk publicly concerning the spiritual basis underlying their liberal/progressive ideals, the right has already won half the battle.