The Whirlwind Follows

“When religion and politics travel in the same cart, the riders believe nothing can stand in their way. Their movements become headlong - faster and faster and faster. They put aside all thoughts of obstacles and forget the precipice does not show itself to the man in a blind rush until it's to late.”

Frank Herbert, Dune

"Sir, my concern is not whether God is on our side; my greatest concern is to be on God's side, for God is always right."

Abraham Lincoln

Well within living memory is a time when Republicans and Democrats would work together in Washington DC to get bills through Congress and signed into law by the President. Both sides were sure that their approaches to any given issue were correct, but when these approaches differed, they argued and eventually worked out a compromise that neither side may have loved, but both sides would accept and vote for. Both Republicans and Democrats could see in the compromise bill a way of moving forward at least partially toward their chosen solution. Each side could say to their supporters that the compromise was the best that could happen at the time, but as more people became persuaded by their arguments, more could be done toward implementing their chosen solution.

Those days are past, and seem unlikely to return in the near future. A new kind of certainty has come into politics which sees the opposing side as not merely wrong but as actually being a threat. This kind of certainty has long been found in Christianity (and other religions too, most likely -- but I speak now only of the one I know well and therefore can speak about with some authority), and it is no coincidence that, as Christian groups have entered fully into the American political ring with a kind of theological politics, that this new kind of certainty has moved from religion to politics.

This kind of certainty, where disagreement represents a threat, has two main supports in theology: an argument and a commitment. The commitment comes about because many Christians stake their souls on a proposition. The argument is grounded in the omniscience and benevolence of God.

The commitment support arises because, instead of staking their souls on the saving acts of Jesus Christ, many Christians have staked their souls on the truth of the statement that Jesus Christ died for their sins. Therefore anything which may call into question the truth of that statement is seen as a spiritual threat. Since the support for the truth of that statement is seen in the Bible as it has been interpreted and explained to these Christians, anything which seems to contradict what they have been told that the Bible says is ultimately seen as undermining the truth on which they have staked their souls, and is seen as being a spiritual threat by extension.

The argument supporting this kind of certainty runs in this way. God is all knowing, and good, and therefore always tells the truth. The Bible is the Word of God, and therefore is also true. Therefore what the Bible says (and how I read the Bible, though that is often not made explicit) must be true and anything which appears to contradict it must be false. This argument starts out acceptable, but goes astray. It is true that God is all knowing, and good, and therefore tells the truth. Furthermore, it is true that God is certain about both political and theological positions. The Bible is God's revelation (although the supreme revelation of God, and indeed Word of God, is not the Bible but Jesus Christ), and therefore what it says is also true. However, the readers of the Bible are not themselves gods, and therefore are not perfect, and can misinterpret the Bible. What the Bible says is true; but the Bible does not necessarily say what each and every reader thinks it says. When we read the Bible, we interpret it; whether we intend to or not, we bring our own ideas, our own context, our own past to Scripture. The Bible is the certain and infallible expression of God, but we are fallible readers of the Bible.

This flaw in the argument supporting the kind of certainty we see moving from theology to politics suggests a remedy: humility. What we need are politicians and voters (especially those claiming to be Christians) willing to say, at least to themselves, that while they are sure they are right, they are also sure they are not perfect, and therefore they can be wrong. Acknowledging this truth would not require anyone to change a single position on any political issue, including the highly controversial ones. What it would require is a change of tone. Rather than seeing your opponents as opponents of the truth who thereby threaten you, you now have to see them as people like yourselves, who seem to be wrong on a given issue, but because you may be wrong too, you are not better than them. You now have to respect your political opponents as people who may be wrong, just as you may be wrong.