Today's celebration of the Christian faith has sparked an insight for me about how to reconcile this country's sad state with its supposed Christian heritage. The insight is the focus on personal salvation. The individual is the main attribute of the United States in its foundation and in every dimension of government. The rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is a profoundly inward looking motivation. Most Americans would accept the ideal of a society in which each person could pursue their passion and their own path, so long as the pursuit does not interfere with another's same rights.
My personal understanding about the Christian faith is that each individual is doomed unless the individual 'accepts Jesus as their personal savior,' and I believe many Christians would agree with some version of this assertion (whatever the interpretation of 'accepting Jesus'). The divergences begin as to the consequences of this canonical step, and I am persuaded that the philosophy of each person deciding for themselves is at the heart of the divergence.
The result is there is no consensus among Christians about what is required of them as a member of society. Even Jesus is quoted as 'Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's,' and "Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God and those which exist are established by God."
An interpretation, especially in the context of the focus on the individual, could be that societal injustices and inequalities are matters of government and are of debatable concern to the Christian. The salvation of the individual soul is all that matters. Now, Christ also admonished 'Judge not, lest ye be judged.'
But the converted experiences a change. In the church of my parents, the death of Christ is to be reflected in the death of oneself. The baptism ritual is the setting aside of one's old sinful self, emerging as a new person possessed of the holy spirit. So far so good. Now, how does this new person act? Love thy neighbor as thyself. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Love the lord thy God, etc. There is quite a long list. Some are quite hard for the American: "Sell all your possessions and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." "But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you."
Here the diffusion, the confusion, and the digression begins. The Catholic observes certain rites in their tradition, the Baptist others. The Christian policeman may feel threatened and kill in self defense. The criminal may use their gains to feed and house the homeless. Soon the Christian circles back to conclude that it is improper to judge others. Worldly possessions are unimportant. Even the poor are 'blessed'. So economic issues are irrelevant to the individual with respect to salvation; if they are of no concern to God, why should they matter to you? And if they don't matter to you, why should you care how impoverished anyone else is? This conundrum explains the range of behavior among Christians.
As I write, I now wonder about the anti-abortion passion of Christians. Their rhetoric seems to focus on the killing of an infant, perhaps depriving that 'soul' of receiving Christ as a savior. I don't think it is a concern about the soul of the pregnant mother, or the doctor, who could be thought to be committing a mortal sin (in Catholic theology). After all, their sins are their own, and God will judge them. The strife around this issue is ultimately about the boundary between an individuals right to choose and societal duty to protect the defenseless. Again, if the concern about abortion is protection of the defenseless, it is inconsistent with the drop in concern once the baby born, and a complete absence beyond infancy.
This focus on the individual salvation, the cautioning about judging, the discounting of worldly things, and other features of Christianity in America are reinforced by the rhetoric of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. The resulting ethos is an avoidance of defining life in relation to society. We are not obligated to each other in any way, save not interfering with another's interpretation of the pursuit of happiness.
Perhaps this is too harsh. One could argue that we all understand that the boundary between individual freedom and societal interest is the center of debate and conflict. The process of governing is, of course, all about this boundary. In other words, it is easily said and readily agreed that individuals should be free to govern themselves. It is the rest of existence that is difficult and requires our energies, because it is here that there is no consensus and much disagreement.
Now to add the obvious: The United States was founded on the principle and the assurance that there is no state religion. This indisputable feature allows for citizens of all faiths to participate in government. If there is no consensus in the domain of Christianity, there is surely less consensus in the domain of Christian, Judaism, Islam, Atheism, Buddhism, and any other religion.
And so, the business of government drops back to “establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity." Our ongoing debate is the role of government and the limits to fulfilling these ideals.
No comments:
Post a Comment