Stephen Prothero is a religion scholar at Boston University, and has written a book entitled “The American Bible: How Our Words Unite, Divide, and Define a Nation,” .
Stephen has taken some flack for some of his recent writings at the blog about Jesus.
I’m not saying that I agree totally with Stephen’s conclusions… but I will say that I think many times our Christianity here in the states is more ‘western’ than ‘biblical’ at times. It’s a natural response to our culture and upbringing.
Personally… I like pieces like this that make me think.
Take a read, and let me know what YOU think about Stephen’s writing:
In my book “American Jesus,” I demonstrated how American views of Jesus, rather than adhering strictly to the unchanging biblical witness, have shifted with the cultural and political winds. Over the course of U.S. history Jesus has been a socialist and a capitalist, a pacifist and a warrior.
In other words, he has been used, by both the left and the right. Or, as I put it, “The American Jesus is more a pawn than a king, pushed around in a complex game of cultural (and countercultural) chess, sacrificed here for this cause and there for another.”
This problem of mistaking your God for the God – the problem, that is, of idolatry –was captured beautifully by Albert Schweitzer, who suggested that scholars on a quest for the “historical Jesus” were looking down into a deep well and seeing not the real Jesus but reflections of themselves.
This is what is happening, in my view, to my angry evangelical readers. In this case, however, they are looking down the well and seeing some mashup of Ronald Reagan and Romney. Instead of the biblical Christ, they are seeing the Republican Jesus.
There are many ways to support my argument that the preoccupations of the Christian Right today are not the preoccupations of the Bible.
One is to point out that abortion is never even mentioned in the Bible. (Yes, Jeremiah 1:5 reads, “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,” but when did that formation happen? At conception? At quickening? At birth?)
Another is to point out that American evangelicals didn’t care about the abortion question until the GOP taught them to care.
As Jonathan Dudley observes in a recent Belief Blog post, U.S. Catholic leaders began to take on abortion right after Roe v. Wade legalized it in 1973, but American evangelical leaders continued to teach that life begins at birth until the late 1970s and early 1980s. If the Bible clearly teaches us that our politics should center on the abortion question, why did it take nearly 2,000 years for Bible believers to figure this out?
Here is my basic proposition: Bible-believing Christians who want to base their politics on the Bible ought to get the Bible straight, which is to say (a) correct and (b) directly from the page, rather than filtered through the spin of the GOP.
To this end, I would like to challenge them to look at an amazing website, part of“The Official King James Bible Online,” which lists each and every word in that translation of the Bible in order of popularity.
Not surprisingly, “and” and “the” are the top two. But how do more meaningful words rank?
Abortion, of course, is not on the list. Neither is homosexuality, though there are, I will admit, perhaps a couple dozen references to what we now call male homosexuality (and either one or zero to lesbianism, depending on how you read Romans 1:26).
So these issues are not central. But which issues are? Well, faith, grace and salvation, for starters. (They appear 231, 159 and 158 times, respectively.)
But if you turn to the political questions that beset us today, what does this quantitative approach to the Bible yield? First and foremost, a preoccupation with “war” (470 times) and “peace” (280). Second, a preoccupation with economics, and especially with the rich (109) and the poor (233).
The Bible also seems far more concerned with “prison” and “prisoners” (109) than we are in U.S. politics today. And, I might add, with famine (101).
Finally, the Bible mentions Israel a lot (2,509 times) – even more than heaven (644). So that seems to be something that both candidates got right in the third debate.
To conclude, I have no problem with evangelical Christians voting for Romney. My complaint arises when they say they are doing so because the Bible commands them to vote for the candidate who is opposed to abortion rights and opposes same-sex marriage.
Thoughts?
Todd
Jesus does not fit neatly into any political box. Remember the Israelite wanted a Messiah, but they thought he would have political, social and military power. They aimed way too low, because King Jesus accomplished so much more. Funny how we in the West seem determined on trying to force Jesus back into conformity with political agendas and Jesus just keeps aiming higher.
There is no question that we in the west have, in many ways, lost sight of what real Christian behavior and attitudes are. Obviously, Jesus made every effort to not allow Himself to be pigeonholed. That being said, there are a couple of thoughts that come to mind. There are a number of things about which the Bible is either silent, or nearly so. Abortion is one of them, as in the time of Jesus, children were generally accepted as desirable. There was no reason to talk about something that was more-or-less universally denounced in that culture. In the Greek and Roman cultures, infanticide and abortion were much more common. Homosexuality has been batted around quite a bit, and what I generally tell people is to look at “first principles” – i.e. what does the Bible indicate was God’s original choice? Obviously, one man, one woman. Physically, that is the way we are made. People may respond with, “Well, that’s related to procreation, and that is not an issue any more!” Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t – but God does not explain the “whys”of a lot of what He does, and it seems to me that we are being presumptuous to assume that we know better than Him in controversial areas. The reality is that we all struggle with finding the balance in a whole slew of issues. Conservatives are bashed for being uncompassionate, yet studies show that they give more to charity than liberals. The thing with which conservatives struggle is when people who COULD be productive are given assistance with not accountability. Liberals often rightly accuse conservatives of being intolerant, yet they themselves are often viciously intolerant of those with whom they disagree. The definition of “tolerance” has been hijacked to mean acceptance, and that is not correct. I tolerate many with whom I disagree, and I will try to make arguments to sway their mindset. That doesn’t make me a “xxxxphobe” (fill in appropriate word) – I don’t hate people with whom I disagree – it just means that I think they are wrong, and I find no problem with working to prevent them from pursuing their agenda, just as they see no wrong in preventing me from pursuing mine.
Evangelicals still have a long way to go before people see them as anything other than loudmouth haters, but keep in mind that there is an element of truth in wanting to vote for someone because they espouse ideals with which you agree.
Excellent response.
I got super-annoyed with the evangelicals in the US who were so dead set on electing a republican president that they “temporarily suspended” their feelings about the Mormon church. As if to say it doesn’t matter what you believe in as long as you’re a conservative republican.
For shame…
A presidential election is between two candidates and their values. If a Morman has values that match up with yours 75% of the time and a secular candidate has values that line up 50% of the time with yours … voting for the Morman does not imply acceptance of Mormanism … just that his values are, on the whole, more supportable than the alternative. We do not live in a black and white world as most issues are “gray.” That is why we must employ a great deal of wisdom in making our choices,
Pietrosquared,
I believe that you are making the same mistake so many others have made in this election season. I do not, for one minute, support or endorse the theology of Mormonism. I do, however, support a PERSON who says that he or she will try to effect changes that prefer life to death, and that prefer what I (and many others) believe to be Biblical moral principles. What a person claims as their belief system, in this context, is not as important to me as how they actually live out those claims. I have no fear that Romney would try to recast the USA as an “LDS Nation”, but I do fear that Obama will continue his efforts to recast us a socialist nation. The Bible clearly espouses the virtues of charity and working to support yourself. Real charity is never portrayed as enforced – it is always voluntary. When a government steps in and says, “I am going to take what you worked for, and give it others who have no accountability to receive it, and if you resist, you will be punished!”, then what you have is extortion, and that is definitely opposed to the NT message of God loving a cheerful giver (or more to the point, 1 Cor 13 – “…if I have not love, it counts me nothing.”
If a Muslim, a Buddhist, or an atheist said that they would implement financial restraint, reduce government spending, oppose efforts to expand abortion, provide for a strong military, support Biblical morality, and the other candidate had shown by his or her actions that they were opposed to those principles, regardless of their claim to being a Christian, I’d vote for the one whom I thought would be the better choice. I would not, will not vote for someone ONLY because they claim to be a Christian. I have seen enough in my life as believer to know that that is a road that can lead to disaster.
When a government steps in and says, “I am going to take what you worked for, and give it others who have no accountability to receive it, and if you resist, you will be punished!”,
What is meant by Give to Ceasar what is Ceasar’s?
Bart,
That is a good question, and probably requires its own discussion thread! However – the context of my remarks is in the field of charity – true charity is not enforced, the NT seems to be pretty clear on this point. As a Christian, I DO give to charitable organizations – the ones I believe will best utilize the money I give. Those who argue that taxation is just doing what the Bible commands Christians to do anyway are totally ignoring this principle. I believe that “giving to Caesar…” would primarily be understood in the context of public infrastructure – i.e. facilities, projects, and organizations whose primary function is available to all the public. Roads, bridges, police and fire departments, etc. Charity – giving aid to people who really need it – is not part of our government’s mandate. That is OUR responsibility as individual citizens. Google “Davy Crockett” and charity, and read about a situation that happened many years ago when a bill was introduced to give money to to the widow of a naval officer. Also, if you have time, read some of the quotations of Alexis De Toqueville regarding government and money. it is always easy to give other people’s money away…
What other electable candidate was there to vote for? It was either Romney or Obama. Not voting, or voting for a third choice was throwing your vote to Obama. I’m not going to bury my vote to allow the direction of our country to continue under the current leadership. I am a follower of Jesus Christ first. I want our country governed and it’s policies toward Biblical principles. Since I live in a country that has the priviledge of allowing us to determine who is going to govern our country, I am going to cast my vote for the one who is going to govern “more” toward Biblical principles. I’m not voting for a pastor-in-chief… I’m voting for a commander-in-chief. NO candidate is going to be perfect, only one person was. But a nation who’s God is the Lord is blessed. Our country is being steered AWAY from God. I want it to be steered back.
We pick and choose those “biblical principles”, though… don’t we… Romney has a history of being pro-choice, and now he says he’s pro-life? Romney is a member of a religion that only decided in 1979 that black people were human… The Bible urges us to care for the poor, and Romney has made it clear how he feels about them… If Romney had been elected and become president… I’m trying to figure out WHAT god he’d be praying to in the White House.
LAS says “I am a follower of Jesus Christ first.” One candidate has clearly described himself to be a follower of Christ (although one could doubt the sincerity of that claim). The other candidate clearly has NEVER described himself to be a follower of Christ. If this matters to you, LAS, then which candidate would you vote for?
I hope you had a good time beating that dead horse. Really…I do. Beating dead horses is fun and productive.
Anecdotally, I encounter more “Jesus is a democrat” people than the other way around these days…or “Jesus would care more about voting for a candidate that will lead the government to take care of the poor than prevent abortion”.
It was the other way around in the 90′s and early 2000′s. The backlash against the Christian Coalition crowd (even by those in the Republican party) has whittled down those groups. This article would have been very fitting…in 2001-ish.
Perhaps the anecdotal evidence tells you something else in Boston. I’m sympathetic to that. My experience is that minority groupings (democrats in Texas or Republicans in Massachusetts) are the ones that get the bad-wrap press. Minority groupings are always more extreme because they do and say extreme things to be noticed/heard.
However MOST Christians that vote either Republican or Democratic are quietly voting their conscience with – I’m guessing – disagreements about their own party’s platform.
I’m also of the belief that this is an unhelpful line of discussion and misses the mark for more productive discussions on the nature of a Christian’s political involvement. But then again, broad stabs at the evil, boogie-man, “republican Jesus” crowd is red-meat for some demographic, I suppose.
While I agree with the premise that Jesus is not a Republican, I believe the divergence comes at the point of economics rather than social concerns like abortion or homosexual marriage. The kind of word counting that Stephen Prothero engages in is beneath his status as a true scholar. The fact that Jesus doesn’t mention abortion or homosexuality was that both were unthinkable in the Jewish context of his day. Both were widely practiced in the Hellenistic culture which Jesus himself never touched, but which Paul did. Abortion itself as a procedure was not mentioned by Paul, but homosexuality was engaged, and not just on a word list, but more extensively in Romans 1. I think the so-called “argument from silence” is a rather weak one. What does Scripture as a whole say about the sanctity of life and the sanctity of marriage?
Jesus, a Republican. What a ridiculous idea. Jesus, a Democrat. What a ridiculous idea. How about this? Jesus, an American. Equally as ridiculous.
As I think about my responsibility as a citizen to be informed and to pray for those placed in authority over me that they might promote peace among the people, I do not read in there that they are necessarily leaders who share my faith values. As much as I might want that, as much as I might work toward that end, just as others work toward having people in office that support their values, in the end my call is simple, Pray for those in authority over our people.
I am weary of all of the conversation about the social issues, the religious viewpoints, i.e., Mormonism vs Black Liberation Theology. In a democracy it has been said, “you get the government you deserve.” I am a conservative, theologically, socially and politically. I do not feel like I have to take a back seat in the arena of ideas just because my lack a certain “coolness” factor. Nor do I think that conservatives are cold hearted and mean spirited, just as I don’t think that liberals are weak thinkers and generally irresponsible. We are a fallen people who unfortunately run to our notions of rightness, often before we run to the scriptures.
The sun will rise, God is still on the throne and the last time I gave it any serious thought, He is still sovereign.
I agree that maybe the abortion issue may not be as black and white as some make it out to be, but the church has taken stands against abortion in the past. There is a command against it in the first century Didache. That evangelicals were late coming to it, doesn’t make the argument that it isn’t important. Should it be our main focus? Of course not, and this is where many I think get confused. But poverty, economics, etc – these shouldn’t be our main focus either. Our main focus is first to love God with all heart, soul, and mind – and then to love our neighbor as ourselves.
On the matter of when does life begin. The most compelling thing to me was in 1982 when, through the miracle of ultrasound, my wife, my parents and I witnessed what to us was a miracle. My wife was not just gaining weight, she really was pregnant. It was such a miracle that on that morning in the doctor’s office we were told we were having a little boy. When did life begin for us? At that moment we knew we were waiting on William. It was a baby, it was our baby boy, William. So when I hear the argument that in the past people said that life began at birth that does not surprise me. But to hold that view today would be wrong. Now I am awaiting my first grandchild, due to arrive in twelve weeks. His name is Evan William. Is he a baby? You bet he is, even though he has not left the womb of his mother, my daughter.
Science and technology has advanced the idea that a baby is a baby prior to traveling down the birth canal. The GOP didn’t make that discovery. The Republican Party did not make that definition. We are called to protect those who cannot protect themselves and technology has placed little babies, forming in their mother’s womb, on the protection grid (I believe with God’s approval), along with widows, orphans, the poor and people with special needs. To have knowledge brings with it responsibility. Knowledge does not allow me to be neutral, I must declare, I must take a position.
I appreciated Mark’s comments that arriving late to the conversation does not invalidate the significance of the issue.
Well said.
Since when do we guide our ethics simply by the number of occurrences of particular words in the KJV???
Virgin birth? Must not be impt as it gets almost no mention. “The blood of Jesus” shows up only 3 times in the Bible. Oh but “breasts” appear 27 time!. Suddenly I feel much better about the direction of our country!!! At least we’re focusing on the more impt things today!
Jim. I am not voting for someone who “claims” to be a Christian or not. I’m not voting for their faith, I am voting for someone who says they will govern our country according to principles that are closer to the Bible. If then, once in office, do not fulfill those promises, will not receive my vote for re-election.
Obama is the most pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage than any other president. He has spent more than all previous presidents combined. Has lowered the GDP every year since being in office. He is the most anti-Christian than any previous president.
I don’t know how any believer can put their vote that would allow him another term.
I’ve been pro-life ever since I heard of abortion which was long before I knew what GOP meant and long before I cared what political party platforms were. I have been that way not because the Bible used the word abortion but because it speaks against murder and puts a high value on the life of a child.
As for how many times the idea of homosexuality appears; how many times does God have to say something for us to take it serious? Isn’t putting value on something by counting the occurances a Western mind thing?