Putting Out the Fire

In today’s America, conservatives and progressives (sometimes called liberals) are virtually deadlocked in how best to lead the country. Unfortunately, this ongoing battle for ideological power shows few signs of letting up in the near future. Divisions run deep with half the population listening to and reading one ideological perspective, while the other half absorbs a completely different narrative. To add fuel to the fire, politicians often double down on their partisan rhetoric, with little effort spent trying to build bridges of understanding between the competing political factions.  

The terms liberal and conservative, while stoking all kinds of emotional reactions, are not as clear-cut as many think. When the American colonies rebelled and incited revolution against King George III and Great Britain, they were considered liberal by the standards of the day. For centuries conservative monarchial rule had governed Europe, and the rejection of royal autocracy for enlightened democracy was considered radical.

Furthermore, ideas such as freedom of the press, freedom of speech, the separation of church and state fell into the category of liberal innovations. The concept that all men (people) were created equal, as advocated by the Framers of the US Constitution, was completely foreign to conservative European governments that inherently divided people by social ranks and classes. Yet all of these liberal ideas were embraced by the vast majority of Americans, both conservatives and progressives.

In other words, contrary to what today’s American media often portrays, conservatives and liberals in the United States share much in common. The fact is, conservatives have adopted many liberal ideas and liberals have also benefited from conservative positions. Nonetheless, our nation is being torn apart by politicians who caricature the opposition as demonic, godless, fascist, or whatever label resonates with their constituency.

Unfortunately, even religious institutions have become caught up in the name calling and negative branding. Conservatively aligned people of faith are often viewed by progressives as anti-intellectual, and liberal people of faith are frequently viewed as marginal believers at best. The open acrimony between these two groups who worship the same God, read the same Bible, and believe in so many of the same things has caused great harm to the mission of the church.

While I’m certainly concerned about the stability and continued survival of our democracy (after all, it has worked fairly well for over 248 years), I worry that religious arrogance has played an outsized role in the breakdown of America’s political culture. The Christian religion, especially, has been politicized to the point that it intentionally divides people, when it was intended to be a blessing to the world.

What people believe about God can contribute positively or negatively to a communities’ way of life. It is noteworthy that early followers of Jesus did not try to brow beat others into accepting certain standards of behavior or doctrines of belief; they intentionally lived in humility, gentleness, and love toward others and wooed the world through their Christ-like attitude toward others. In today’s hyper-political environment, however, Christians have grown suspicious of other Christians who don’t subscribe to the same political ideology—“political ideology,” mind you! In other words, it’s not Jesus that is the point of contention but partisan politics.   

What many fail to grasp, however, is that political ideology and culture, not the Bible, have historically shaped our religious convictions more often than we care to admit. The Bible itself shows how culture and ideology have influenced belief. Deuteronomy, for instance, tells parents to take their disobedient sons to the city gate and have them stoned (Deut. 21:18-21). Now what parent would do that? Are we to understand this passage as the literal Word of God—a command to be carried out—or merely a warning to insubordinate teenagers? A literal reading of Scripture would be a gross misinterpretation of God’s character.  

There is more. In the Book of Romans, when Paul instructs us to greet each other with a “holy kiss,” we don’t normally follow his instructions in today’s churches, do we? (Rom. 16:16) When Paul commands women to be silent in churches and to be excluded from leadership roles (I Cor. 14), are we to adhere literally to what Paul is writing? Even in today’s conservative churches women sing and pray out loud. They most definitely are not silent! Paul also admonishes women not to braid their hair, wear expensive clothing, or adorn themselves with gold or pearls (I Tim. 2: 9-10), but women are not chastised in today’s churches for setting aside these rules.

Then, too, the story of Mary certainly calls into question a literal reading of Scripture. Mary, you remember, was engaged to be married to Joseph when she was found to be with child. Now an engagement was a legally binding contract in first century Judaism, and if the woman was found unfaithful to her fiancé, severe punishment could be meted out. Joseph knows the child is not his, so what should he do? If he follows the biblical mandate, he could have Mary stoned to death (Deut. 22:23-24).

Joseph did not yet know that the child was of divine origin. Still, he chooses not to inflict the death penalty on Mary. The Bible calls Joseph a “righteous” man, although righteousness in this sense means that he bent the law toward grace. It was only after Joseph had made his decision to spare Mary from punishment that an angel informed him that the child was from God.

For Joseph, righteousness meant that he could not blindly follow the law. Certainly that would have been the conservative thing to do. Instead, Joseph had to pray, think, search his heart, and struggle with his decision. Joseph knew, as we must all learn, that to read the Bible as a literal rulebook, with no wiggle room, is to misread the Bible.

Terms like conservative and liberal are difficult to pin down when it comes to interpreting Scripture. A biblical word like grace is far more instructive. Grace is the interpretive key for both Old and New Testaments. Jesus underscored grace through his love and forgiveness of sinners—which includes all of us. Jesus made grace tangible, demonstrated how it worked in the real world, and revealed that law must always be tempered with grace.

Someone may argue, “But, Michael, doesn’t this open the door for people to take advantage of God’s grace?” Absolutely. But in the life of faith, if we’re going to err, it is far better to err on the side of grace than the side of law.  

When it comes to political ideology or religious orthodoxy, too many of us speak with dogmatic confidence about subjects of which we have only a spattering of information. We may quote a verse or two from Scripture, or repeat what a friend has told us, or read an article that aligns with our convictions and think that we have the complete truth, when in reality we have only a partial understanding.  

If we’re serious about faith, there is one thing we desperately need: Humility. The disciples of Jesus had front row seats to all that he taught, and, still, they remained in the dark about so much. The Apostle Paul confessed that we “see through a glass darkly”, meaning that in this world we will never have absolute clarity about the ways of God.

Instead of belittling those who disagree with us or label them with derogatory terms that only inflame, we should work to be gracious, humble, sensitive, and understanding. No one has all the answers or a lock on truth. Our political convictions are fallible. And our religious beliefs forever seek understanding.