Christian Activism and God's Plan for America

Politically active Christians fight for policies they feel support their god's agenda. In this statement of belief about why Christians should be politically active, Michigan businessman, inspirational speaker, and born-again Christian Stacy Swimp argues that "True Christians have a responsibility to God to fight any law or policy that would violate God’s will and, in the end, our own conscience."

Swimp and other politically active Christian leaders urge believers to engage in the entire process from prayer to the polling place, and to work in private, in small groups, and in crowds in an effort, as Swimp articulates, to remove " the demonic stronghold which has, for decades, lead us down the path of moral relativism, socialism, broken families, record levels of unemployment, and leadership that has forgotten that righteousness exalts a nation!"

Taking a shot at Swimp for his hasty generalizations would be easy enough, but he is here not as a punching bag, but as an example of Christian political activism and an introduction my argument that, from the perspective of a believing Christian, political activism has no bearing on political outcomes, and from the perspective of a non-believer, Christian political activism seems almost contradictory to the faith's tenets.

Let's begin with solidarity. While Christians in general claim the same broad beliefs, their politics (and indeed their doctrine, but that is best left to a shelf of books) are anything but homogeneous. What one might support depends on one's particular sect. Let's take a look at two politically active Christians' views on the minimum wage. The first, Stacy Swimp, you've already met.

Stacy Swimp

Swimp is a businessman and conservative Christian and is connected with The Crossing Church in Farmington, Michigan whose pastors, Randy and Debbie O'Dell, are married. I only point this out because although Swimp does not directly associate himself with a particular sect, it is safe to conclude he holds generally Protestant religious views because the Vatican does not allow ordained clergy to marry. Swimp urges his readers to fight a political battle against the minimum wage which is, in his words, "inherently discriminatory. It can be argued that they are racist in consequence, if not in intent" and "furthermore, show partiality for one segment (a very small part) of our society, to the detriment of the masses. Hence, they are not only morally wrong, they are unrighteous. Spiritually wicked." Got it? God says we should pull back on government entitlement programs and increase the freedom of the individual to move in a relatively unregulated capitalist marketplace.

Charles Clark

Economist and staunch Catholic Charles Clark disagrees with Swimp, and in an interview published in U.S. Catholic, argues for legislating a raise in the minimum wage. He emphasizes that "research clearly shows that once you raise the minimum wage, the whole bottom wage structure rises with it. The last study that I saw found the bottom 40 to 50 percent of wages start to creep up once you raise the minimum wage. That’s a way of creating rules to push people up." Furthermore, Clark, like Swimp, frames this as an important issue for the faithful, "Poverty is exclusion, and people are excluded from more than just the economic life of the community: exclusion can be social, political, cultural, and even spiritual. These are areas where the church, I think, can be most effective." And . . .got it? God says we should use government power to manipulate the capitalist marketplace and decrease the individual businessperson's range of choices when comes to paying his or her workers.

So how does God decide which view to support? Is there some sort of polling switchboard and He just goes with the majority? How does He weigh the prayers and protests and votes of politically active Christians on opposite sides of an issue or who take various differing positions within an issue?

Actually, Christian religious texts have the answer to these questions, and at least for those who take the Bible as truth (often spelled with a capital "T"), reveal that for true believers, activism intervention can have no possible impact on the outcome of any political struggle.

Let's postulate (if you aren't Christian) or present as a given (if you are Christian) that:

The Abrahamic god worshiped by Christians exists. I will, according to convention, use the masculine pronoun and refer to him using the proper pronouns "Him" and "He" and the proper noun "God."

God is omnipotent. He can exert His will over anything in His creation at any time or any place simultaneously. Nothing can resist His power.
"And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth." (Revelation 19:6). 

 God is omniscient. He knows all things at all times, including the past actions, ongoing actions, and future actions of everything in His creation. Nothing is hidden from Him, including even the most fleeting thought.
"I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose.'" (Isaiah 46:9-10).  

God is omnipresent. He is everywhere at all times and in all places and has been and will be for all eternity. God's presence cannot be escaped.
"Nothing in all creation is hidden from God’s sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account" (Hebrews 4:13).

 God has a plan for His creation. He has a plan not only for the larger scheme of things, but also the lives of every individual creature, including and especially humans, in His creation.
"This Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men" (Acts 2:23).

Because of His overwhelming power, it is quite easy for Him to affect His plans. He enacts His larger plans through the actions of individuals and groups of individuals regardless of the personal desires of those individuals.

This, for example, occurs in Exodus when God tells Moses to ask Pharaoh for release, but apparently for PR reasons, God says to Moses, "I will harden Pharaoh's heart that I may multiply My signs and My wonders in the land of Egypt" (Exodus 7:3). Pharaoh may well have let Moses and his crew go without all the death and pestilence, or maybe just after Aaron did the whole my-snake-rod-swallows-all-your-snake-rods thing, but that was not part of God's plan.

Dude, your breath.

Likewise, Jesus's public torture and blood sacrifice was also part of God's plan, a plan in which He created a dramatic tableaux using his former pal and fallen Archangel Satan and patsy Judas Iscariot: "Then Satan entered Judas, called Iscariot, one of the Twelve. And Judas went to the chief priests and the officers of the temple guard and discussed with them how he might betray Jesus" (Luke 22:3-4). 

Neither Satan nor Judas had any say in the matter. I suppose you could argue that Satan could have refused God, or failed to have been manipulated into possessing Judas, but that would contradict God's omnipotence.

All this helplessness in the face of an almighty deity means that if you are believer, you can take solace in knowing that even though your prayers were not answered, God heard them and didn't answer them for a reason, or He answered them in unexpected ways because it was all part of His plan.

God's plans are immutable and the individual's wants are secondary, if not irrelevant. He already knows the outcome of everything in His creation across all time and is present and powerful in each every moment. You can't surprise Him and He can't surprise Himself.

Thus, whatever path the United States body-politic is taking is being directed by God through the actions of individuals and groups of individuals whether they know it or not or whether they think their actions are making a difference or not.

By way of example, the striking down of DOMA was all part of God's plan and the exertions of protestors on both sides of the argument were also part of His plan. Like Pharaoh and Moses and Satan and Judas Iscariot, Christians might argue that yes, of course the DOMA defeat is part of God's plan. He want us to demonstrate our loyalty and commitment by fighting more strongly for His will in our nation and is testing our worthiness through political martyrdom and ability to suffer. But this doesn't make any sense because, being omniscient, He already knows the personal commitment and worthiness of every single individual.

So why do some believers feel that "good Christians" are politically active Christians? If you are not a politically active Christian, are you are something less than "good." Does that mean you are bad? Does God prefer the firebrand over the hermit? Will a prayerful, reflective, honest, introverted, studious true believer be cast out of Heaven and a prayerful, honest, exuberant, publicly passionate extrovert be welcomed? Real Christians know these are rhetorical questions.

Or not, Your call

One argument made by some religious leaders that good Christians must be politically active in order to influence the levers of power to push the United States to become a moral and righteous nation, a more Christian democracy.

But again, it won't make any difference. If God needs America to become a Western European democracy with a single-payer health care system and extensive social safety net with legalized abortions, so that later he can condemn the damn place to sulfur and brimstone, then no amount of good Christian influence is going to make any difference. If, on the other hand, He chooses to take America to the brink and save her, then He has already planned it (and relative to His existence, it has already occurred and is occurring) and He'll do it without his followers' puny exertions.

For non-believers my argument is simply a thought exercise. They understand that political activism does have effect on the outcome of political struggles, and they also understand that religion plays a big part in people's lives. Thus, non-believers realize that religious beliefs can be manipulated or invoked or rallied to successfully gain the upper hand in political contests.

For believers it is a bit more complex. They cannot be fighting for personal gain, because through faith they already have achieved the Kingdom of Heaven and in the blink of an eye will be reunited for eternity with their deity.

They also cannot believe that their exertions will help anyone God doesn't want to be helped or change anything God doesn't want changed.

This excerpt from Chapter 9 of Paul's Epistle to the Romans sums up the whole exercise:

For He says to Moses,“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. For Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

The research clearly shows that once you raise the minimum wage, the whole bottom wage structure rises with it. The last study that I saw found the bottom 40 to 50 percent of wages start to creep up once you raise the minimum wage. That’s a way of creating rules to push people up - See more at: http://www.uscatholic.org/blog/201306/catholic-case-raising-minimum-wage-27483#sthash.e6mDhtU5.dpuf

The research clearly shows that once you raise the minimum wage, the whole bottom wage structure rises with it. The last study that I saw found the bottom 40 to 50 percent of wages start to creep up once you raise the minimum wage. That’s a way of creating rules to push people up - See more at: http://www.uscatholic.org/blog/201306/catholic-case-raising-minimum-wage-27483#sthash.e6mDhtU5.dpuf

50 Shades of Jesus

I ran across this lengthy and theologically convoluted justification of bondage-dominance sex games.(1)

In it, Jonalyn Grace Fincher, an apparent Christian and author of the site and book Ruby Slippers: the sparkly connection between femininity, sexuality and faith, interviews ordained minister "John Keller" who "shares his belief of how Christianity and BD/s (Bondage, Discipline, Domination) may work together." (And yes, I don't know what to make of the blog/book title either. "Sparkly"?)

Fincher is skeptical, but writes that she wants to learn more and challenges Keller to support his position. I will not summarize the whole bit here, but focus on a single point: Christianity and BD are completely compatible: both center on absolute, unthinking domination.

Keller, however, is keen to emphasize BD play is all about building mutual intimacy. He urges "those who get a kick out of controlling and overpowering others should stay away from BD/s, because for them in the end is not about mutual pleasure and building intimacy with one’s spouse, but about a thrill-seeking power-trip"

Considering that 40% of the Decalogue is all about an egocentric "power trip," Keller is slipping dangerously close to contradicting his thesis of BD/Christian compatibility. The Old Testament deity is clearly someone "who get a kick out of controlling and overpowering others." This isn't healthy, right?

But to be fair, Keller seems to be bringing his argument to what might be called "moderate" Christians, who usually try to emphasize embracing a loving Jesus who is both there to comfort and to guide. This, most Christians would agree, starts through complete and unquestioning faith and submission.

Multiple Biblical passages support the idea of total submission. These include everything from the chillingly prone to twisted interpretation Romans 12:1 "I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship," to the seemingly more benign James 4:7 "Submit yourselves therefore to God," to the gentle binding of Matthew 11:29 "Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls."

It would be hard to find a Christian, even a "moderate" one, who did not agree with pastor Dr. Roger D. Willmore's exhortation that every Christian "should live moment by moment in faithful submission to the lordship of Jesus Christ."

Keller straps his argument to this clearly defined and long-accepted aspect of Christianity. He states that "the act of bondage – which would represent an ‘exercising power over a willing partner’ would not inevitably have to be seen as ‘dominion-taking’, since the one exercising ‘power over’ would not necessarily do this outside of the realm of love, but as part of a mutually empowering love. The powerful love in this BD/s scenario, then, expressing itself in the form of surrender and submission on the one hand, and care, guidance and leadership on the other hand, would mutually reinforce and deepen the strong bonds that exist between the marriage partners."

I don't have any problem with mutually consenting adults enjoying themselves in whatever ways they both find titillating, but if I were a believer, I would find Keller's closing comments a little disconcerting:

"BD/s should only be engaged in by a couple who share deep trust and where both are interested to grow, expand and deepen the ways they can build shared sexual and emotional intimacy. It will take lots of communication, understanding and ‘letting ourselves be fully known’ to practice BD/s healthily. But isn’t that exactly what can contribute to bringing a couple closer together – in a way that delights and honors God?"

So Christian couples, the next time you tie down, remember, your omniscient God is watching and is quite possibly "delighted."

(1) I just stumbled across this piece and was moved to write this blog even though I haven't explored what is apparently a well-established Christian BD "community." And although I haven't read any Christian BD erotica, perhaps the blog post will peak your interest in investigating further. Spank Me for Jesus seems like it might be a place to start. 

Keeping Wallflowers from Speaking

It's summer and I'm reading. I just finished The Perks of Being a Wallflower by Stephen Chbosky.

I'd like to be able to teach this book, together with House on Mango Street, because the protagonists are both self-reflective, teenage observers of human nature. Chbosky and Cisneros use short "chapters" written in deceptively simple English that contain truths eager for mining via discussion. There are many other comparisons and contrasts between the two works that would make for a wonderful ninth-grade unit and, as a bonus, many of last year's ninth graders are picking up Wallflower and reading it on their own. In fact, I hadn't heard of the book until one of my students gave me a copy as a gift on the day before she moved to another part of town.

So teach it, you might exhort, especially given that students are finding the book, recommending to their peers, and enjoying it all on their own! What a great gift that young lady gave you! And what better way thank her for opening your eyes to this little gem than by teaching it to successive generations of freshmen.

You'd be right, of course, but the book contains instances of 1) straight premarital sex, 2) gay premarital* sex, 3) illicit drug use, 4) underage drinking of alcohol, 5) underage smoking of tobacco, 6) sexual abuse of minors by family members, 7) use of taboo language like "shit" and "fuck," 8) abortion, and 9) bad driving habits. Kicking the shit out of a gay student is also in the book, but would be of little concern to those who would be opposed to my teaching the novel.

It is no surprise to find out that Wallflower made the American Library Association's 2007 most challenged book list. Check out the list and you'll see the dirty fingerprints of arbitrary religious values all over the young and shapely bodies of 10 books written for young people (including the number one most challenged book, And Tango Makes Three, a children's picture book about penguins that supposedly mentions homosexuality and is "anti-family.")

Alas, the inability of teachers to bring into the classroom a sensitive and reflective protagonist immersed in a real and compelling coming of age in modern America further deteriorates their credibility in the eyes of their charges.

*Thanks to the State of California I couldn't have written "gay premarital sex" and had it mean anything legal until yesterday. Let us pray to a kind and loving deity that the Christian Right doesn't force me to revise my phrase.