The Religious Right And Conservative Christianity

Pam BG has an excellent post on the deeply sub-Christian nature of the Religious Right (hat-tip to Dave Warnock). She rightly delineates the differences between the North American and British scenes. (I guess Pam has a special take on that, as an American who has long been resident here.)

If

the ‘Religious Right’ hold as core
to their belief system that human beings have a God-given right to
life, liberty and private property

then that needs a lot of questioning. ‘Life’: well, as an evangelical Christian (in the historic sense) I am pro-life. My basic stance on abortion is that it is generally wrong: it is the taking of life, not surgery on part of a woman’s anatomy. But to be in favour of life more widely puts one at odds with much of the Religious Right’s agenda. While I am no longer a pacifist, the easy promulgation of war and covert operations against rogue states is hardly pro-life. Nor is the support of economic policies that cause extreme poverty in nations where our TV news operations don’t regularly have cameras and reporters. Nor is the denial of global warming combined with an approach to creation that sees it as purely for our benefit, leading to environmental rape and further damage in the first instance for developing nations. So exactly how pro-life is the Religious Right? Not much, in my opinion.

‘Liberty’: well, that word needs careful nuancing. All too often its meaning is taken from Enlightenment roots in the French Revolution and American Constitution, and tends to mean ‘the freedom to do what I want.’ In contemporary consumer culture that makes an idol of the self (as I point out in my comment on Pam’s post). I am sovereign. But in biblical terms Christian liberty is something entirely different. It is being set free from these very things! It is to be set free from the self-centredness which is sin, so I can use my liberty in the service of God and humankind. If the Religious Right in the States and other places were promoting an agenda that saw thousands and millions of Christians waiving their own rights in order to transform the lives of others, I’d find them more credible. In fairness, too, ‘rights’ language is also misused by liberals and the left: witness the growing disillusionment in this country over the frequent invocation of Human Rights laws since the Government signed up to the European Convention (although also conversely, note how those who bemoan its use by others like to invoke it for themselves).

‘Private Property’: there is a thoughtful exchange of views between Pam and one of her commenters, Peter Kirk, on this one. It comes down to an issue that even if we do believe property or possessions are ours to make decisions about, they are not ultimately ours. They are a gift of God’s ‘common grace’ (if an Arminian can gladly use a Calvinist phrase!) and we are but stewards of them.’All things come from you, and of your own do we give you.’ I’d love to believe the Religious Right endorsed this, but I’d need some convincing.

All of which makes me glad for the diversity of evangelical Christianity in the UK. I am delighted to see TEAR Fund play a major rôle in campaigns against poverty, third world debt, climate change and so on.

Am I saying that no evangelical Christian should hold right-of-centre views? Absolutely not. I think of two friends who are active in the Conservative Christian Fellowship, and it makes sense, because they have particular passions about the sanctity of life and family issues. To my mind, biblical ethics cannot be confined to modern views of left and right. They tend to splurge across a range of political convictions. God is neither left nor right, as Jim Wallis has reminded people. Evangelical (as well as liberal and catholic) Christians are found across the political spectrum in the UK, and that makes sense to me.

But my limited experience of the North American scene is rather different. In 1995, when I visited the Toronto Airport church, I encountered one American who was shocked when I said I supported the idea of a welfare state. I quoted Genesis, about being my brother (and sister)’s keeper. Incredulously to me, he claimed that Scripture reserved the duty of care for the poor to the church – as if the church had the reserves to meet all society’s social needs, and non-Christians were not under any moral obligation in the eyes of God! Similarly, an English friend of mine moved to work in the States a few years ago. He is a scientist researching treatment for HIV/AIDS, and an evangelical-charismatic Christian. He found a church where he felt at home theologically, but was staggered by the assumption that it was an evangelical duty to vote for George W Bush, and almost tantamount to heresy even to comtemplate voting differently.

Pam, thank you again for such a thoughtful piece.

Technorati Tags: PamBG, DaveWarnock, ReligiousRight, pro-life, humanrights, PeterKirk, TEARFund, ConservativeParty, JimWallis, TorontoAirportChristianFellowship, InternationalPartnershipForMicrobicides, GeorgeWBush