Such experiences have reminded me that we often misconstrue social overlap as ideological similarity. Of course this seems natural, but I wonder if it is always helpful. In my case, we assume that because many Christians are Republicans, something essentially Republican defines Christianity, or vice versa. Thus, we suppose a philosophical relationship between a faith and a party which may or may not exist.
In an Indicator article published about a year ago, I argued that such a relationship, at least essentially, does not exist. Drawing on the Biblical records of the early church, I tried to explain that, while there is nothing essentially Democratic about Jesus Christ, there is nothing essentially Republican about him either. Instead, the gospel lays out our opportunity to have a relationship with God and describes that relationship through our interaction with each other. In doing so, it urges us to pay any cost, through any means, to better love God and our neighbors.
It goes without saying that such a gospel maintains no political affiliation, but I don't think this makes the gospel itself apolitical. In fact, Jesus' message was so politically charged that it got him killed. Still, the difference between Jesus and other political personalities is simple. Rather than invoke God to advance his political agenda, Jesus' agenda demonstrated God. This is where I would say most Christians have messed up.
Almost across the board, the Christian social message has become one of passive prohibition. No abortion. No gay marriage. No no no. But at the end of the election cycle, the gospel still remains, and there is nothing passive about it. Jesus never stood on a rocky perch proclaiming what was wrong with the people to whom he ministered. Hardly an emphatic no, Jesus' message instead was a very clear yes. "Go into the world." "Give to the poor." "Love as I have loved." Perhaps Christ himself said it best when, quoting Isaiah, he explained exactly why he had come. "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor" (Luke 4:18-19). In considering these words, I lament the road political Christians have taken. It seems that in our country, we have stopped living the active Christianity of Jesus.
Given their example, it's hardly surprising that Americans imagine Jesus' three-year ministry as some sort of fire and brimstone miracle-a-day sideshow. And yet, Christ did not see the world this way. His ministry had a clear spiritual and physical purpose which he lived out each day among the people. It seems that people were never as touched by Christ's message than when it was accompanied by genuine, tangible love. Jesus' acts of provision, healing and liberation testified that he was who he said he was, and ultimately, these three things made Christ's message relevant. In commissioning his disciples to go on without him, he described their ministry similarly. "By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another" (John 13:35). Thus, the political Christian must look to government only as a means of actively ministering in these ways. Sadly, few have taken this approach.
Jesus turned seven loaves of bread into a meal for 4,000 people. The early church pooled its resources to meet all of the needs among its membership. Jesus said that the least are the greatest in God's kingdom, but in the U.S., poverty didn't even rank in the top five voter issues in this past election. If, like the newspapers say, Christians turned the tide in November, they did so without giving a voice to the 39.5 million Americans who had no food to eat on Election Day. If a Christian is to have God's perspective, he must devote himself politically to realizing Christ's heart for the 12.5 percent of this country living in poverty.
A woman touched the hem of Jesus' robe and the internal bleeding she had known for years simply stopped. After Christ ascended, the apostles made blind men see and dead men walk in his name. Jesus himself described his purpose by saying, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick" (Matthew 9:12). The political Christian must prioritize active physical care over condemnation and moral reprimand. The reasoning for this is clear. Jesus had no credibility until he did something real for the people he served. Again, the gospels depict Jesus as an active lover of those in need. He attested to God's love by being God's love. As a result, thousands upon thousands heard him out with open hearts.
Following Christ's model, American Christians must move away from the politics of condemnation and move toward the politics of healing and provision. The angry sermonizing of the most famous Christian politicians is fundamentally misguided. By its sheer tone it strays drastically from the ministry advocated by Jesus, but more importantly, it accomplishes nothing. Jesus continues to challenge Christians to love actively and with a genuine sensitivity to the needs around them, and yet Christian politics repeatedly fail to address the needs of the sick and the poor of America. Ultimately, the world of Christian politics will never reflect Christ himself until it takes up his mantle of justice and provides for the "least of these." In the meantime, Christ's words to the Pharisees echo eerily in the distance. "This people honors me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me" (Matthew 7:6).
Maguire can be reached at jcmaguire@amherst.edu