Читать книгу JESUS RODE A DONKEY: - Линда Сегер - Страница 7

Chapter One

How Would Jesus Vote?

“[You] have neglected the weightier matters of the Law—justice, mercy, good faith!”

Matthew 23:23

Jesus and the prophets shared a vision for a people and a nation—that a nation would respond to its people with justice and mercy and good faith. These Christian values are also democratic values, asking us to come together to create a free, equal, and kind society that cares for all its citizens. We are asked to help remove structures that oppress its citizens. Christian values recognize the redemptive potential and possibilities of humanity. So does democracy. A democratic nation provides a voice for the majority as well as the minority, and promises freedom and protection for all. A democratic nation, founded on religious principles, struggles to create unity out of diversity, without compromising either one.

Which Is the Christian Political Party?

Both the Republican and Democratic parties, and some of the others as well, are made up of millions of Christians. But categorizing Christians is not so easy, since Christians fall into a number of different groups.

Fundamentalist Christians believe that every word in the Bible is the literal Word of God. Evangelical Christians believe that we must be Born Again by accepting Jesus Christ as our personal Savior, and that their work on earth is to spread the Gospel of Christ to all nations. Mainstream Protestants and Catholics, and many liberal and progressive Christians, believe that the true Word of God is not the Bible but Christ Jesus, who continues to reveal Himself and transform us. They see the Bible as inspired, but they are not literalists. They believe God’s work continues to develop and unfold in our modern world.

Christian Mystics put the focus on the Holy Spirit dwelling within. Some Mystics have visions and ecstatic experiences of the Living Christ. Some of these, such as the Quakers (including me), combine their Mystical devotions with social actions, believing that the work of the Spirit within leads us naturally to manifesting the work of the Spirit in the world.

Some Christians put their focus on the life and sayings of Jesus, and see him as a good man who is our model for a good life, but don’t see him as the Son of God. Nevertheless, they identify as Christian.

Some of these Christians, such as Catholics and mainstream Protestants and liberal Christians, are more apt to vote Democrat. Others, such as Fundamentalists and Evangelicals, are more apt to vote Republican. But the actual voting statistics are not quite so neat.

About one out of five Christian Evangelicals votes Democrat. The foremost evangelist of our time—Billy Graham—is a Democrat. In 2004, Catholics, and other Protestants, on the whole, were almost equally divided between George W. Bush, who is a Methodist, and John Kerry, who is a Catholic. In 2008 and 2012, black Protestants voted overwhelmingly for Barack Obama. Obama also got the Jewish vote and 75% of the Hispanic Catholic vote, with Catholics on the whole being almost evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats, and Protestants tending slightly toward the Republican Party. Clearly, in all elections, millions of Christians in both parties vote their values and their priorities.1

How Do We Judge Our Candidates?

Christians have many ideas on how to decide the best way to express their Christian values and faith through the way they vote. Many begin by figuring out whether the candidate is a Christian like them. All the candidates in 2016 are Christian except for Bernie Sanders, who is Jewish. They come from a wide variety of denominations. Hillary Clinton is Methodist. Jeb Bush was Methodist until he converted to Catholicism. Ben Carson is Seventh Day Adventist, Donald Trump is Presbyterian, and Ted Cruz is Southern Baptist. Marco Rubio was a Mormon for a few years in his youth and now attends both a Roman Catholic church and a Southern Baptist church. John Kasich is Anglican.

Some voters look at the candidates and judge whether they express the gifts of the Holy Spirit, such as love, peace, joy, gentleness, self-control, trustfulness, faithfulness, patience, and goodness.2

Voters might ask: What is the Good these candidates have done in the world? Have they helped feed the hungry, clothed the naked, given a cup of cold water to the thirsty, and given hope to the hopeless?3 Have they cared about the ‘least of these’ as Jesus asked them to? What and whom do they care about? Have they made the world a better place? Have they built up God’s Kingdom—not just with words, but with deeds? Whom do they serve? God—or power, money, and the elite?

Christians also judge candidates to see if they are expressing qualities that are contrary to the Spirit. These include the Seven Deadly Sins of pride, envy, greed, gluttony, lust, anger, and sloth as well as bragging, mean-spiritedness, fear, dishonesty, and hate.4

Why are these sins so dangerous? Because they hook the basest part of our human nature and drag us into the pit of nastiness. We are then tempted to participate and hit back since we’ve been hit. We want to give tit for tat. The ugly mess spreads.

We only have to look at the Republican debates in the 2016 election season to see what happens when one person begins with nastiness and malice. Donald Trump set the tone for the Republicans. He attacked, Labeled. Called others names. And kept the focus on the fight, not the issues. For a while, other candidates tried to stay out of the fray—and Kasich and Carson managed to keep their cool. But others got hooked. Trump’s followers found it thrilling. Finally there was someone who spoke to their anger and fear. The more he stoked the fires, the more excited they became. He was their guy. Their savior. He was going to make America great again, in one vague way or another, and he was going to hit every bully they wanted hit, and be the Power that would stand up for them. He spoke with force, and attacked and diverted every attack against him. Jesus was right—“What goes into a man’s mouth does not make him unclean, but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him unclean.”5 And there is a lot of vitriol coming out of a lot of mouths this season. But it isn’t just the person attacking who is unclean, it’s the people in his way who are victims of this unhealthiness. They can easily become corrupted, either by weakening because the attack demoralizes them and strips them of their power (this happened to Jeb Bush—Trump knew just how to get his goat) or because they decide to play the same nasty game, which is happening to Cruz and Rubio. Their worst instincts have been hooked—and they exchange one blood threat and attack for another, not yet realizing that no one can out-Trump Trump. He is a master at this. And the game is like a great bullfight, or cock fight, or gladiator fight. Blood is drawn. People who are lured into the slough lose their identity as children of God. If we want to see Christian behavior, we won’t see it in these exchanges.

As this nastiness spreads out, voters get caught up in the bloody game, and at some point, the international community gets caught up too—slash for slash, burn for burn. And our world, which already teeters on the edge of disharmony and hatred, tilts toward destruction.

That is exactly what Jesus, and Paul, and the prophets, warned us about. Sin is crouching at our door, it desires to have us, but we must master it.6

As my Texan friend sometimes says to me, “Don’t get none of this on ya.”

I personally am amazed by the Evangelical support for Donald Trump, who has been called “Hater in Chief” by Esquire Magazine and whose bragging and pride are so overt. Trump knows little about the Bible; he has stumbled when asked what is his favorite verse of the Bible. He’s said he never asks for forgiveness because he’s not making mistakes. And when he speaks about the Lord’s Supper, he says he likes his little wafer and wine at communion because it makes him feel good.7 On Bill O’Reilly’s show in January 2016, Trump expressed his Christian value system as being about an-eye-for-an-eye. O’Reilly turned his cheek and said that was from the Old Testament, and that the New Kingdom of Christ brought in the idea of turning the other cheek. Donald Trump shrugged as if he had no idea of what O’Reilly was talking about.

A number of Evangelical Christians are beginning to speak against Donald Trump and to show their concerns from a Christian perspective. Russell Moore, the President of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, says, “Trump’s vitriolic—and often racist and sexist—language about immigrants. women, the disabled and others ought to concern anyone who believes that all persons … are created in God’s image.” Moore discussed Trump’s “narcissistic pursuit of power,” calling it “decadent” and “deviant.” And he said for voters “to view it any other way now would be for them to lose their soul.”8

A number of noted Evangelicals have said, publicly, they won’t support Trump if he is nominated. This leaves Conservative Evangelical Christians in an ethical dilemma, since everything points to Trump as the Republican nominee. They could join the 20% of other Evangelical Christians and vote Democrat, at least for the Presidential candidate. Even Republicans would have to admit that Democrats have conducted their campaign with more civility and concern for the poor, the needy, widows and orphans, and the “least of these” than Trump. They might decide not to vote, thereby not adding their voice to the democratic process. They might decide to vote for other candidates on the ballot and leave the Presidential candidate blank or add a write-in candidate. They might decide to vote for him, but if he truly is dangerous, immoral, and a hateful force in American politics, they would be colluding with evil. Perhaps as more Christian voices express their concern during the primaries, there will be a profound turn in the direction of the 2016 campaign. But I have my doubts.

The Struggle for Unity

If we move beyond party to people, a Christian Democrat and a Christian Republican might agree on many issues. Sometimes they vote according to whom they feel they can best trust to keep promises. They vote for the person who seems to have the same priorities as they do, or the one they think can best exemplify these values in our government. Many vote for the issues, while trying to assess the character of the candidate.

Both democracy and Christianity are challenging. They challenge us to go against our seemingly natural human behaviors of hatred, intolerance, greed, and self-righteousness, or what the Apostle Paul lists as the problems when the Holy Spirit is not at work: “antagonisms, rivalry, … bad temper and quarrels, disagreements, factions and malice”9—all the traits we see daily on our television sets, read about almost daily in our newspapers, and often see manifested in election campaigns.

On the surface, there seem to be issues that are not easily resolved, because there seems to be an inner contradiction between Christianity and democracy. Churches often ask us to be homogeneous in our beliefs and actions. Churches have creeds, and dogmas, and statements of belief, and the members are asked to, at least verbally, agree with them. But our country is not homogeneous. From the beginning, settlers of our country came to America to find freedom, and soon found that there was a diverse group of others, all of whom wanted the same freedom for themselves. Early on, many of the settlers respected these differences in order to create a democratic system.

We are often in a struggle between the desire to be inclusive and the desire to be exclusive. We often feel a struggle between our natural suspicion of each other and the command to love our neighbor.

I have heard time and again that we are a Christian nation. But we are not a Christian nation—neither in many of our actions nor in the makeup of our citizens. No matter how much we might like to be homogeneous in religion, we are not. We are a diverse nation, made up of Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, Wiccans, Hare Krishnas, Sikhs, New Agers, atheists, agnostics, Zoroaster followers, and followers of Native American spirituality, among others.

There are many people other than Christians who have values. Many of those values are similar to ours—among them, the values of freedom, equality, honesty, justice, mercy, compassion, and the Golden Rule. Many people besides Christians see America as the land of opportunity, the land where they can achieve their dreams. Although there may be more of “us” than “them,” and although our democracy may have been founded mainly (but not entirely) by Christians, our country has strived from the very beginning to give freedom and justice to all. As Christians living in a democratic nation, what we desire for ourselves must be available for all. Suppressing another’s freedom is not the answer.

Was Jesus Political?

Christians look to God to lead and guide them in their decisions. They look to the example of Jesus, but some wonder if Jesus is relevant to our political choices.

On the surface, it might seem as if Jesus was not a political person but was someone who focused, instead, on individuals and individual relationships. He certainly did not live up to the Jewish hopes for a political Messiah. The Jews in Jesus’ day imagined a militant Messiah who would lead an army, overthrow the oppressive rule of Rome, and establish a religious kingdom.

We can, however, see some of the political viewpoints of Jesus through the actions he took and those he didn’t take. Jesus didn’t identify with any of the political structures of the day. He rejected the Sadducees, the conservatives who were willing to go along with foreign domination provided it didn’t compromise their position. He confronted the Pharisees, who observed religious practices in great detail, made hundreds of oppressive religious laws, and also supported the established powers of the day. He never joined the Essenes, who rejected political involvement and took no part in any of the religious ceremonies they considered impure. Essenes formed a separate sect, and moved to Qumran by the Dead Sea. He was not part of the Zealots, one of the most politically active groups. They were nationalists, who wanted a radical transformation of existing political institutions through violent revolution.

Many of Jesus’ followers were from different political parties with different political and religious beliefs. Simon, called the Zealot, would have either been a revolutionary or a sympathizer with the group that desired to overthrow the Roman government. Matthew, the tax collector, worked for the oppressive government Simon wanted to overthrow. Yet there’s no evidence that Jesus tried to change their political parties, or even their religion. He wanted to change their hearts and their actions.10

Was Jesus Conservative or Liberal?

The labels of conservative and liberal can paint individuals into a corner. Liberals often hold conservative values, and those considered to be conservative often hold certain liberal values.

The word “conservative” comes from the word “conserve,” which means to preserve. Generally, conservatives want to preserve the status quo. They prefer to maintain existing habits and views and institutions. A true conservative usually wants government to have a limited role in social and economic affairs. At their best, conservatives ground our country by recognizing the ideals of the past and giving us a solid foundation on which to stand.

At their worst, conservatives can be inflexible, rigid, legalistic, and immovable, with no vision of a future and little thought to how our actions today might affect the world of tomorrow. They are sometimes fearful of risks and distrustful of change. Because they are often unable to imagine other possibilities or to believe that change can lead us to a better society, conservatives are less apt to envision new ways to solve social problems.

“Liberal” is a word coming from the Latin liberare—to set free or to liberate. The word often means generous and bounteous and open-handed, as used when someone gives liberally to charity. Liberals tend to advocate reforms that would achieve greater freedom for citizens. To achieve that, they are more apt to criticize the status quo, imagine new possibilities, and ask how it can be done better. They are willing to be unconventional and untraditional in order to solve a problem. At their most extreme, liberals can become so freedom-minded that their actions lead to excess, anarchy, and a lack of restraint that can become destructive.

We sometimes hear the term “progressive,” and sometimes politicians such as Hillary Clinton refer to themselves as progressives rather than liberals. They tend to be tolerant of others and want to remove restraints to the freedom of all citizens, not just for themselves. They want to improve the world and improve the social welfare of others. “Progressive Christianity,” a relatively new term, refers to Christians who work toward a more just and compassionate world and struggle against racism, sexism, homophobia, and other human oppressions. They recognize that there is truth in other traditions as well, and they strive to overcome dogmatism.

All of these positions need to be balanced. Lacking balance, any position can lead to the vicious extremism we see in almost all political parties and religions—ranging from the fundamentalists who will kill in the name of their party or their religion, to the radicals who destroy property and create anarchy in the name of freedom.

Like most of us, Jesus exemplified both conservative and liberal values. There were certain values he wanted to conserve; there were others that he wanted to liberate from a rule-oriented culture in order to reinterpret, broaden, or change them.

The Freedom to Love God

The most important value that Jesus wanted to conserve was the commandment to “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and all your strength.”11 Love of God is above all things and is the guiding principle throughout the entire Bible. How to love God has been one of the thorniest issues any individual confronts.

Our nation was founded by many who loved God. Before the Constitution was written, the early colonies tried to legislate the love of God. They became repressive when they tried to impose laws about how this love was to be shown. The Massachusetts Bay Colony persecuted any who didn’t love God in the same way they did. They banished those who didn’t agree with them, particularly the Quakers. Besides being banished, Quakers were imprisoned, whipped, branded, burned, and enslaved; some had their ears cut off and their property confiscated; several were put to death for insisting on the right to worship in their own way.12

Puritan minister Roger Williams (who later helped found the first Baptist church in America) was banished from Boston because he believed that everyone had the right to think and worship as he pleased. In his pamphlet called “The Bloudy Tenent of Persecution, for the Cause of Conscience,” published in 1644, Williams said, “How ghastly and unbelieved … was the damage done and the number of innocent human beings slaughtered in the effort to make men and women worship God in some certain way.”13

He believed in separation of church and state so neither could control the other, and complete toleration by the government of all sorts of religion, even the religion of the Native Americans. Williams, the Quakers, and other tolerant Christians established freedom of worship and freedom from a state-sponsored religion.

Just as important as Williams’ ideals about religious freedom were his ideals about democracy. He believed that governing was not the work of the aristocracy, but that each family should have an equal voice in the government. Together with Anne Hutchinson and Samuel Gorton, he founded Rhode Island, which was one of the first colonies with complete religious freedom.

In 1657, the Flushing Remonstrance was created as a declaration of religious freedom in New York, and an affirmation of diversity. It is considered to be one of the precursors of the Bill of Rights, and declares, “we are bound by the Law to do good unto all men,” and guarantees that “love, peace and liberty” should be extended to all residents, including “to Jews, Turks and Egyptians as they are considered the sons of Adam … our desire is not to offend one of his little ones in whatsoever form, name or title he appears in, whether Presbyterian, Independent, Baptist or Quaker, but shall be glad to see anything of God in any of them, desiring to do unto all men as we desire all men should do unto us, which is the true law both of Church and State.”

In the constitutional debates almost a century and a half later, the issue of religious freedom was still in the forefront. Those who preferred the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution felt the Constitution didn’t take religion seriously enough. They believed that society should be a “molder of character, rather than … a regulator of conduct.” Those who favored the Articles of Confederation believed that one religion should mold everyone into their same value system, and make laws to ensure that everyone behaved in a proper religious manner.

The writers of the Constitution didn’t want to legislate religion. They said, “little democracies can no more be ruled by prayer than large ones.” They recognized that “Men act mainly from passion and interest.… The Constitution was deliberately and properly designed not to try to stifle or transform those motives … but to channel them in the direction of the public good.”14 The Founders saw that diversity was a protection against the coercion that can happen from majority rule.

Thomas Jefferson said, “Difference of opinion is advantageous in religion. The several sects perform the office of a censor … over such other. Is uniformity attainable? Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch toward uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half of the world fools and the other half hypocrites.”15

Jefferson was concerned about the government getting too involved in individual opinions and belief systems. He said, “… religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions. I contemplate … their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”16

The writers of the Constitution didn’t want to legislate religion. They recognized that democracies cannot be ruled by prayer.

Abraham Lincoln said, “Most governments have been based, practically, on the denial of equal rights of men … ours began, by affirming those rights.”17 There was a constant tension between developing a country toward a theocracy, with a state religion, or toward a democracy, where diversity was accepted. Throughout our history, the impulse toward religious diversity could not be stifled. If anything, persecution strengthened the dissent and fostered the drive toward the separation of church and state.

Religious tolerance and diversity won, hoping to promote an open and accepting society.

Challenges to Religious Freedom

One of the clearest definitions between the Republican and Democratic values lies with the question of what part religion should play in a nation. The Democrats have had a fairly consistent policy to protect our religious freedoms. Republicans have, during some previous administrations, been protective of religious freedom. However, within the Republican Party is a group who wants to remove our freedom of religion. They are called the Dominionists, and they believe they are called to bring the government under the dominion of one particular brand of Christianity.

The movement was begun by D. James Kennedy in Florida in 1959. (Kennedy also helped found the Moral Majority in 1979 along with the Rev. Jerry Falwell and others.) Sarah Palin is a Dominionist. Others who are Dominionists or have Dominionist leanings are Sam Brownback, Ralph Reed, Michelle Bachmann, Ted Cruz, and Rand Paul.

Kennedy said, “Our job is to reclaim America for Christ, whatever the cost. As the vice regents of God, we are to exercise godly dominion and influence over our neighborhoods, our schools, our government, our literature and arts, our sports arenas, our entertainment media, our news media, our scientific endeavors—in short, over every aspect and institution of human society.”18

There is nothing wrong with bringing values into every aspect of our social and political life. That’s what we would want in a country that tries to serve the Good. But Kennedy was not talking about trying to make Christianity more prevalent in American political policy; rather, he promoted the sole use of the Dominionist brand of Christianity in making public policy—to the exclusion of not only other faiths, but also other interpretations of Christianity. This kind of exclusion and lack of protection for those unlike themselves is unconstitutional and unjust. I can imagine a prayer from a teacher or preacher that says, “Our Lord and Commander, we ask that you give your power to the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and Syria, and help them to overcome the enemy as we fight this great Crusade to lead us to truth.”

I have heard prayers like this. To me, it’s a self-righteous prayer that makes nationalism a religion, rather than Christianity. It sees The Other as the enemy, rather than as The Neighbor, and it implies there will be hundreds, if not hundreds of thousands, of the enemy killed in the name of Jesus. It gives no room for my own Christian belief system as a pacifist.

I can imagine another kind of prayer, that would be anathema to most conservatives, and perhaps millions of other Christians as well: “Our Ground of all being, Mother Earth, Father Sky, embrace our bodies and bring us into unity with you.” Although this may be a more loving prayer, it is so vague and unspecific that it would be meaningless to many. Yet, I have also heard prayers such as this.

I can imagine nationalist prayers that would insist on our complete loyalty to our president, even when he is lying and covering up treasonous or illegal or immoral activities. Do we really want to be saying state-sponsored prayers that keep us from questioning Watergate? Or the Iran–Contra illegal deals? Or the prison abuse in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantánamo Bay?

What about classrooms where most of the students are not Christian but Jewish, or Buddhist or Muslim, or not religious at all? Does the majority rule? Will we all be asked to chant or will the non-Christians be forced to pray “in Jesus’ name”?

Luis Palau, an evangelical preacher who is close to Billy Graham, bristles at the coarseness of these calls for absolute power. Palau is concerned about the ways this influential Republican Christian group belittles homosexuals, “effete” intellectuals and secular humanists. Palau says, “If we become called to Christ, we will build an effective nation through personal ethics. When you lead a life of purity, when you respect your wife and are good to your family, when you don’t waste money gambling and womanizing, you begin to work for better schools, for more protection and safety from your community. All change, historically, comes from the bottom up.”19

Other evangelical Christians are equally concerned about this movement. Former Senator Mark Pryor, an evangelical Christian, says, “It is presumptuous of them [the Christian Right] to think they represent all Christians in America, even to say they represent all evangelical Christians.”20

C. S. Lewis, the Protestant writer and theologian, said he believed in democracy “because I believe in the Fall of Man. I think most people [want democracy] for the opposite reason. A great deal of democratic enthusiasm descends from the ideas of people … who believed in democracy because they thought mankind so wise and good that everyone deserved a share in the government. The danger of defending democracy on those grounds is that they’re not true.… I find that they’re not true without looking further than myself. I don’t deserve a share in governing a hen-roost, much less a nation. Nor do most people.… The real reason for democracy is … Mankind is so fallen that no man can be trusted with unchecked power over his fellows. Aristotle said that some people were only fit to be slaves. I do not contradict him. But I reject slavery because I see no men fit to be masters.”21

Upholding True Conservative Values

Jesus was both conservative and liberal. A conservative value that Jesus affirmed was the value of accountability and responsibility. Leaders are to rule justly, not be beholden to the rich, the powerful, or the influential. Justice transcends political parties.

Both political parties have had a number of presidents, and members of Congress, who have lied, deceived, and tried to get away with breaking laws. It is a right and righteous act to hold these people accountable. In these circumstances, unfortunately, instead of truth-telling, blaming became the focus of the discussions.

The Bible also begins with a commandment that none of the prophets, nor Jesus nor Paul, have overturned—the commandment to tend the environment that God has given us. Although this is a conservative value, it has been adopted by those considered liberals. We are asked to conserve, preserve, and care for the world. Noah went to considerable trouble, under God’s command, to make sure that the animals didn’t become extinct. Jesus extols the beauty of the lilies of the field and the birds of the air, telling us that God will care for us, as He cares for nature. If there is one Christian value that should transcend political parties, it should be our care for the environment.

There is a great deal said about money in the Bible—much of it about giving money to the poor and about letting our money work for us.22 Our country rarely follows these values—spending more than it has, not caring enough for the needy, only rarely creating surpluses.

We love money. It defines us as powerful and comfortable and important. We use it to gain political favor and to increase our clout. We spend it easily. We deny it to some, give a great deal of it to others. We hide and waste a great deal of it. Elections are often funded by the very rich exerting considerable control over the outcome, far out of proportion to their numbers.

Have we been good stewards of our money? The Republican Party used to be considered the party of fiscal responsibility, but this has not been true since the beginning of Ronald Reagan’s presidency. President Reagan ran up the national debt to historic proportions, followed by Presidents George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush.

Fiscal responsibility is usually considered a conservative value, although the Democratic Party has been more fiscally responsible than the Republican Party for more than thirty-five years. From 1981, when Reagan’s first budget took effect, until 1993, when Bill Clinton became president, the Republicans ballooned the debt. Part of the debt under Clinton was 2.2 trillion dollars of interest because of the Reagan–Bush debt. Clinton left a surplus of about 523 billion dollars by the end of his term. Economists projected that at the rate we were going, we could pay off the entire national debt by 2012. But George W. Bush stopped this process and again ran up the debt.

When George Bush took office, the House was Democratic and the Senate was split 50–50. The Congress suggested a budget that was 20 billion dollars less than what Bush requested. George Bush then ran up the debt because of the two wars that he began and his tax cuts which mainly benefited the rich. George W. Bush took control of the budget on October 1, 2001 when the debt was 5.8 trillion dollars, and his last budget year ended October 1, 2009, leaving the next president, Barack Obama, with a debt of 11.9 trillion dollars. Since Obama’s first budget in 2009, the debt has continued to grow, partly because of the recession which began under Bush, partly because of the interest on the debt, and entitlements such as Social Security and Medicare. If Bush had not taken us into two expensive wars, we would have had a surplus and we would have been able to pay for the social programs that have suffered many cuts in the last few years.23

It is estimated that the policies of the 2016 Republican candidates would balloon the debt, favor the wealthy, and further cut social programs. All of the major candidates believe their policies would stimulate the economy by giving money to the wealthy, which would create jobs, and the money would trickle down to the middle class. This is called “trickle down economics,” and during the last 35 years it’s been proven wrong.

Pope Francis has denounced this “trickle down” economic theory on moral grounds and sees it as part of an overall policy that puts money above people. Certainly, it favors the rich and diminishes the importance of the poor.

According to the Citizens for Tax Justice and the Tax Foundation, Donald Trump would swell the National Debt by 10–12 trillion and the “richest 1% would receive a 27% increase in their incomes.” Trump’s idea to complete the wall between Mexico and the United States is estimated to cost over 12 billion and perhaps as much as 15–25 billion dollars. It would then take another 750 million a year to maintain the wall and another 1.4 billion dollars to add the necessary border patrol personnel. Trump intends to have Mexico pay twelve billion dollars to build the wall, something they couldn’t afford. He would threaten to change our trade agreements if they didn’t, which would leave Mexico even poorer and Mexicans more desperate and more eager to emigrate. This is not feasible for improved international relations nor for helping the poor and dispossessed.24

Both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders want to increase the taxes for the wealthy, who are often defined as those in the top one-tenth of 1% or 1% of the population, or sometimes defined as those making more than $250,000 a year.

The plans of Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz would add between 768 billion and 12 trillion dollars to the National Debt over the next decade, and both these plans would favor the most wealthy.25

The Liberal Values of Jesus

Although both the Republican and Democratic parties contain conservatives and liberals, the Republican Party has increasingly sided with its more conservative members.

Our country was founded on liberal and liberating values. The Founding Fathers were willing to change the status quo, overthrow an oppressive government, and create a new form of government by the people, of the people, for the people.

All men are created equal under God, but in the period of time leading up to 1860, they were born into an unequal system. Only white men who owned property enjoyed inalienable rights. Blacks were considered three-fifths of a person. Married women had almost no civil rights at all. Many Christians, but not all, supported this idea, quoting the Bible to justify slavery and oppression of women. Many Christians limited and resisted extending equal rights to others.

How did this change? Through the work of more liberal Christians. Most of the first abolitionists were Christians—mainly Quakers, Methodists, and Congregationalists. Over time, the impulse to liberate women also grew from Christian roots.

The most recent and extraordinary example of this process was the civil rights movement in the twentieth century, led by a Baptist minister, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. The movement was conceived in African-American churches and sustained by Christians of all racial and ethnic groups. Many Christians have been, and continue to be, at the forefront of the fight for the civil rights for others.

Throughout the Gospels, we see the portrait of Jesus as a man who questioned the prevailing religious and social establishment. Many actions that Jesus took, and stories that he told, were about liberating people from legal, religious, and governmental oppression. Rather than demanding adherence to religious dogmas and the hundreds of religious laws, he questioned the way things were, and followed the freer Law of Love.

Jesus transcended sexism when he talked to a woman at the well in Samaria.26 Men were not supposed to interact with women except within the family, yet he spoke theology to a woman of a despised class and understood her. He affirmed Mary’s desire to listen and to learn, rather than fill the traditional woman’s role played by her sister, Martha.27 Women followed him around the countryside and he accepted them, even though this would have been against the social customs of his age. Women became some of his most beloved followers, and some of the leaders in the early Church.28

He challenged the racism of his day by telling a story about a man he perceived as good and righteous—a Samaritan, one of the most hated people in that time.29 This would be similar to telling a Klansman a story about a good and righteous African-American.

He challenged classism, by associating and even dining with the lowlifes of society—the rejects, the prostitutes, the tax collectors, the outcasts, the sick, the lepers, and the untouchables, saying that they would enter the kingdom before the religious leaders of the day.30 He pardoned the repentant thief on the cross, telling him that he would join Jesus in Paradise.31

Jesus, as well as Paul, brought liberal values to the idea of marriage. A Jewish man and woman were supposed to marry and to have children. Jesus was single, and didn’t fulfill the appropriate social and religious customs of his age. Paul clarified that it didn’t matter if a person were single or married; each was to be valued.32

Jesus was against capital punishment, a position that is considered a liberal value. He forgave the woman caught in the act of adultery, and freed her, even though the religious law of his time proclaimed that she be stoned to death.33

Jesus rethought the idea of forgiveness and vengeance, clarifying that no longer should one seek revenge through an “eye for an eye”; nor should one forgive another only seven times, but rather seventy times seven.34 From Leviticus in the Hebrew Scriptures to Romans in the New Testament, Christians and Jews have been told to never seek vengeance toward one another. “Vengeance is mine, sayeth the Lord, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself.”35 The Book of Romans tells us, “do not overcome evil with evil, but overcome evil with good. Therefore, if your enemy hungers, feed him.”36

In many ways, Jesus was far more radical than are the most liberal members of Congress, asking us to act in a way that we often find impossible and impractical. He changed the way we were to think about the enemy. We are to make friends with our enemies, recognizing that if we do not do this, there will be trouble.37 Jesus expanded our idea of the neighbor, telling us that we are to think of our enemy as our neighbor, and he added a new commandment: to love our neighbor as ourselves. This doesn’t mean that we are naive about evil, but that we don’t add fuel to the fires of hatred. Rather than demonizing and attacking the enemy, we should use diplomacy, which is far more in line with the values of Jesus.38

Jesus practiced nonviolent resistance to oppressive laws. He suggested that we love our enemies—feed them, clothe them, care for them, and “offer no resistance to the wicked.” This turns the enemy into a friend. Jesus advocated non-violence with the enemy using a subversive tactic that is often used in nonviolent resistance. If the person of his day were asked for his coat, he was to give the cloak as well. If he were asked to go one mile, he was to go two miles.39

Why is this nonviolent resistance? If a person in biblical times gave up his coat and cloak, he would be naked, thereby shaming the person who asked him. It wouldn’t take long for the Romans to decide that this was embarrassing and not effective.

A Roman was allowed to ask his subject to carry a burden for one mile, but not for longer. If someone started to walk the second mile, the Roman would be breaking the law. It wouldn’t take long for the Romans to stop asking, once they realized that they couldn’t stop their subjects from walking that second mile.

Jesus and the prophets rethought the social structures that generally rewarded the rich and powerful and asked us instead to change our focus to the poor and the needy. The prophets asked for a compassionate nation, and Jesus asked for a compassionate people. Who do we particularly need to care about? Those people who could not give back to us, but who were in need of our care.

Jesus rode a donkey, not an elephant. Elephants were ridden by the rich ruling classes. Jesus didn’t identify with the rich ruling classes, but with the people. He was with the people and for the people and of the people—a core value of both democracy and Christianity.

The Ethics of Jesus

Jesus asked us to go beyond the letter of the law to the spirit of the law. Christian values go beyond simple rules to difficult ethical questions.

When Jesus picked corn on the Sabbath, and healed on the Sabbath, the letter of the law said this was wrong.40 He raised the ethical question—“Does this benefit or harm others?” If it benefits others, we may need to change the law.

Our country has many difficult ethical problems to consider. How are we to handle the ethical dilemma of abortion? How are we to handle terrorism and the proliferation of nuclear weapons? Should we make treaties with enemies? How do we deal with the increasing gun violence in our culture? What about the wide-ranging effects of a global economy? What should we do about climate change and health care and education? Is same-sex marriage a just decision in agreement with our Christian and democratic values? The Bible gives us no clear guides on many issues, except to be willing to confront ethical problems, guided by the Holy Spirit and the Law of Love.

The Holy Experiment

Could Christian values and politics be compatible? Is it possible to govern effectively using Christian values? At least at one point of our history, religious values were applied to create a democratic society called the Holy Experiment.

In 1681, William Penn received a land grant from James II of England to the land that became Pennsylvania, as well as the colonies of New Jersey and Delaware. Penn had been an Anglican, but became a Quaker in 1668. His Christian values and principles informed his decisions about how to govern the state, and for sixty years, he was successful.

He affirmed diversity, and set out to create a colony that was open to all. To achieve diversity, Penn began by recruiting settlers from Holland, England, Ireland, Wales, and Germany.

His new constitution promised full religious liberty to all. He said in his charter of “Laws, Concessions, and Agreements” that “no Men, nor number of Men upon Earth, hath Power or Authority to rule over Men’s consciences in religious Matters.”41 He wanted a government that would be contrary to war, selfishness, cruelty, suspicion, treason, judicial murder, greed, envy and betrayal, persecution, imprisonment, torture, and intolerance that existed in so many governments.42

He believed in the abiding principles of truth, love and equality, and applied them equally to the King and to the Native Americans, as well as to the many citizens of the state.

He called it his “Holy Experiment” because, as Benjamin Trueblood said, “it was founded in love, built up on the principles which love dictates and carried forward in the faith which is inspired and sustained by love.”43

He governed the colony with just rules, and opposed any economic oppression of the many by the few, including any oppression of the Native Americans. He laid out the city of Philadelphia at a place owned by the Native Americans, and, instead of forcibly taking their land as many other settlers did, he paid them for their land. Voltaire later wrote, this was “the only treaty between these people and the Native Americans that was … never broken.”

When the Native Americans met with Penn, they found no guns and laid down their own.44 He established political freedom, founded on the democratic principle of an election by the people, providing for an elected legislative assembly and a Council appointed by the Governor.

It was also a colony without an army, with only a small police force, and without war, for most of those years. It had few judges, but successfully settled disagreements through arbitration. Every country court had several Peacemakers or Arbitrators. They only turned to a court of law when all other methods of settling disputes had been tried. There were only two capital crimes—murder and treason—which was a departure from English law where even minor theft, such as stealing a loaf of bread, could be punishable by death.

Education was emphasized. Prisons were humane. There was only one witchcraft case during this time, which ended without a conviction, in contrast to the hysteria of the Salem witch trials of Massachusetts.45

The colony was socially progressive. Since it treated the Native Americans fairly, it sought to extend these equal and just rights to others. In 1688, one of the towns in Pennsylvania—Germantown—began to question whether owning slaves was consistent with Christian values. Their influence led to the abolitionist movement.

Pennsylvania became the most tolerant and most diverse state in the early years of America, establishing the concepts of democracy and freedom of religion that later became so important in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

William Penn showed that Christian principles could be put into action for the effective governing of a state. His particular Christian values were based on religious freedom and on governing through respect and justice.

Vote the Golden Rule

Many of us bring together our practice of religion and democracy by voting the Golden Rule. What we want for ourselves, we are also willing to give to others. We vote for the rights of others that we would also want for ourselves. We give the same protections, care, and respect to others that we would want for ourselves.

What would Jesus be doing in our society? As the Prince of Peace, he would be questioning our wars, which kill millions of civilians and leave millions of children homeless and as orphans.

As the One who accepts and loves, he would be rebuilding homes, instead of blowing up abortion clinics in the name of God. He’d be caring for AIDS victims instead of limiting the rights of homosexuals. He’d be volunteering at soup kitchens rather than cutting food stamps. He’d be planting trees instead of strip-mining public lands or creating policies that allow pollution. He’d be working to take care of those who have trouble surviving in our society, rather than rewarding the rich.

He would continue to question authority, knowing that power and privilege can easily corrupt.

Democracy asks us to debate and discuss issues to find the best solutions. It asks many of the same questions that Christianity asks:

What are the most important issues the government needs to address?

What is the goal of a Good Society?

What are the means to reach this goal?

How do we bring justice and mercy into a society, and create a society in which all of us, together, work for the Good?