By
Rudy Barnes, Jr.
America’s
politics are polarized, and conflicting values are at the heart of the
political divide. The only way to begin
a meaningful process of reconciliation is to find shared values, and since the
vast majority of Americans are religious, those values should be a matter of
faith.
At
the heart of the political divide is a conflict between traditionalists who
revere past values and progressives who favor change. It’s the same conflict that separates religious
fundamentalists from progressive believers.
Fundamentalists seek to preserve past religious traditions against the threat
of change, while progressives are open to change based on reason.
The
conflict is about more than educational and economic differences. In South Carolina, most Trump supporters were
educated white Republicans with economic security. Those with the least economic security and
education were blacks who voted Democrat.
The election reflected a long-standing partisan divide based on
conflicting values—and race.
There
is no political quick fix. Voters
ignored third parties as an alternative to a polarized duopoly and gave
Democrats and Republicans 95% of their vote, leaving less than 5% of the vote to
be split among four third parties.
America’s political polarization will require a politics of
reconciliation based on shared values, not more political parties.
Values
originate with religion. Most Americans
consider themselves Christians, and most white Christians voted for Trump. They are part of a church that is declining
in popularity. The church must be born
again and put the teachings of Jesus ahead of exclusivist church doctrines that
promise salvation based on worshiping Jesus as God rather than following him as
the word of God.
The
church can restore its credibility and legitimacy by promoting a politics of
reconciliation based on the greatest
commandment to love God and to love our neighbors as we love ourselves. It is a
common word of faith for Jews, Christians and Muslims alike that supports
racial and religious reconciliation and that can provide a balance between
individual rights and providing for the common good, a balance essential for
any healthy democracy.
The
election revealed an electorate polarized with a politics of “us against them,”
based along partisan and racial lines, with most Republicans being white and most
blacks being Democrats; but there is one thing they all have in common: They
are predominately Christian. For America’s
racial and religious diversity to be its strength rather than its weakness, the
church must promote a politics of reconciliation
based on those shared values in a common word of faith. It is simply loving our neighbors—all of them—as we love ourselves.
There
is no shortcut to reconciliation. It
must avoid a politics of fear, anger and hate. Reconciliation must be based on the
shared values of altruism and respect for others rather than on the self-serving
and exploitative values that have polarized our politics. The problem is not new. Both religion and politics have long been
gravitating toward the current polarization.
Jesus
was a radical change agent, but the church has promoted traditional values and
resisted change to gain popularity and institutional power. Church fathers subordinated the moral teachings
of Jesus to exclusivist doctrines of belief that were a form of cheap
grace. They guaranteed salvation without
the discomfort of loving the least, the last and the lost.
The
Enlightenment of the 18th century transformed both politics and
religion in the West with libertarian concepts of democracy, human rights and
the secular rule of law. Those concepts
of natural law and justice transformed progressive religions in libertarian
democracies, but religious fundamentalists continue to reject change as a threat
to their religious traditions.
Change
is inevitable with advances in knowledge and reason, and it requires balancing individual
rights with providing for the common good.
There are different approaches to that balancing act. A libertarian approach emphasizes individual
freedom with the least amount of government, while a socialist approach subordinates
individual rights to government programs providing for the common good. The contentious issues that arise from the
two approaches can be resolved through compromise if both sides are motivated
by the altruistic love for others.
That
is why it is essential that there should be consensus on the shared value of
altruistic love before addressing contentious issues. From the use of lethal force by law
enforcement and the military to health care, all issues that involve human
rights and justice should be considered within the parameters of loving others—all others—to avoid stifling
polarization.
The
term “family values” has been a rallying cry for the religious right since the
1970s. It distorted the fundamental
value of loving all others into the political objective of preserving traditional
family norms and a white ruling class. Such
family values did more to polarize our religion and politics than to reconcile
the increasingly pluralistic elements within our nation.
There
is a moral malaise in American religion today.
Is there a church that will sponsor a process to reconcile our polarized
politics and religions based on the
greatest commandment to love God and our neighbors as we love ourselves—even
those neighbors of other races and religions?
Hopefully so, but if not, it may well be the end of white Christian America.
Notes
and related commentary:
Colbert King captured the moral
malaise in the American church today when he cited Martin Luther King Jr.’s
famous 1963 Letter From Birmingham Jail:
“King wrote…that when he was
“catapulted into the leadership of the bus protest in Montgomery, Ala.,” he
felt the white church would support him. Instead, he discovered some white
ministers were outright opponents; others were “more cautious than courageous
and . . . [they] remained silent behind the anesthetizing security of stained
glass windows.”
King expressed disappointment at
seeing white church leaders, in the midst of blatant racial and economic
injustices, “stand on the sideline and mouth pious irrelevancies and
sanctimonious trivialities.”
He spoke of traveling on
“sweltering summer days and crisp autumn mornings” and looking “at the South’s
beautiful churches with their lofty spires pointing heavenward.”
“Over and over I have found
myself asking: ‘What kind of people worship here? Who is their God?’ ”
“Where were their voices,” King
asked, when the lips of their governors dripped with words of bigotry and
hatred? “Where were their voices of support?”
They were silent. See https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/in-the-age-of-trump-what-is-a-christian/2016/11/18/11fab326-adb6-11e6-8b45-f8e493f06fcd_story.html?wpisrc=nl_opinions&wpmm=1.
On the recent election as evidence
of the end of white Christian America,
see
Eric C. Miller has likened Donald
Trump to an avatar for a morally bankrupt American religion. See http://religiondispatches.org/rising-to-heaven-in-a-secular-rapture-trumps-golden-promises/.
On the greatest commandment as a common word of faith for Jews,
Christians and Muslims, see http://www.jesusmeetsmuhammad.com/2015/01/jesus-meets-muhammad-is-there-common.html.
On religious fundamentalism and a politics of reconciliation, see http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2016/05/religious-fundamentalism-and-politics.html.
On the need for a politics of reconciliation in a polarized democracy,
see http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2016/10/the-need-for-politics-of-reconciliation.html.
On religion and reconciliation after a political apocalypse, see http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2016/11/religion-and-reconciliation-after.html.
No comments:
Post a Comment