By Rev. Henry Sun
Special to the Herald
During the season of Lent, a cohort of Wesleyan pastors and theologians published a confession of faith entitled Reclaiming Jesus: A Confession of Faith in a Time of Crisis (http://www.reclaimingjesus.org/).
This particular confession is structured with six specific theological affirmations, each of which is followed by a political or public policy position to be rejected by faithful followers of Jesus. Note that while the text below is taken directly from the confession, I have reformatted the material.
1. We believe each human being is made in God’s image and likeness (Genesis 1:26). Therefore, we reject the resurgence of white nationalism and racism in our nation on many fronts, including the highest levels of political leadership.
2. We believe we are one body. In Christ, there is to be no oppression based on race, gender, identity, or class (Galatians 3:28). Therefore, we reject misogyny, the mistreatment, violent abuse, sexual harassment, and assault of women that has been further revealed in our culture and politics, including our churches, and the oppression of any other child of God.
3. We believe how we treat the hungry, the thirsty, the naked, the stranger, the sick, and the prisoner is how we treat Christ himself (Matthew 25:31-46). Therefore, we reject the language and policies of political leaders who would debase and abandon the most vulnerable children of God.
4. We believe that truth is morally central to our personal and public lives. Therefore, we reject the practice and pattern of lying that is invading our political and civil life.
5. We believe that Christ’s way of leadership is servanthood, not domination. Therefore, we reject any moves toward autocratic political leadership and authoritarian rule.
6. We believe Jesus when he tells us to go into all nations making disciples (Matthew 28:18). Therefore, we reject “America first” as a theological heresy for followers of Christ.
What strikes me most about this confession (apart from the fact that I wonder how any Christian could disagree with its affirmations and rejections), is how similar it is in tone and substance with The Barmen Declaration from 1934 (see http://matthewlbecker.blogspot.com/2012/10/pericope-of-week-theological.html?m=1 for a readable English translation).
The Barmen Declaration was written in response to the growing reality of German Christianity, the overlaying of German Aryan ideology with a Christian veneer. Written largely by the Swiss theologian Karl Barth, the Barmen declaration called out German Christianity for its heretical nationalization of the Christian faith. Interestingly, the Barmen Declaration – in tone and in substance – shares much in common with Reclaiming Jesus:
Articles 1 and 2 focus on Jesus Christ as the one word of God to be heard, trusted, and obeyed (article 1) and who is the assurance of our forgiveness and God’s claim upon our entire lives (article 2).
Article 3 focuses on the church as the community of faith for all, solely under the lordship of Christ, and charged with hearing, obeying, and proclaiming the Word of God.
Article 5 focuses on the separation of church and state, rejecting as heresy the idea that the state can be the servant of the church or in any way take over the church’s tasks.
Article 6 focuses on the church’s call to proclaim the message of God’s grace to every nation and thus rejects the subordination of this message to any political agenda.
As I see it, the main danger now facing the American church is the co-opting of the American church for a specific political agenda – OK, a specific Republican, hard right Tea Party agenda – in the guise of Christian faithfulness.
I see this as the natural, indeed inevitable, outcome of the marriage of one branch of American Christendom, the evangelical church, with one political party that began in the 1980s, when the hard Religious Right helped elect Ronald Reagan as our 40th President.
I see it in the efforts to bring a scientifically discredited young earth “Creation Science” agenda to science curricula in public schools.
I see it in the efforts to dismiss, demean, and insult young people who care about gun violence but who get labeled as “Communists,” “whiners,” or “skin-head lesbians” by these hard right ideologues.
I see it in the efforts to harass and bully women, gays and lesbians, Muslims, undocumented immigrants, and those who do not fit into the nice, binary categories of male versus female.
I see it in the efforts to reduce health care for the neediest among us in the name of an economic theory that assumes that once the wealthiest amongst us have enough, they will begin to share that wealth through jobs and investments without any consideration of our insatiable human greed.
The Barmen Declaration and Reclaiming Jesus are both right to reclaim the centrality of the Lordship of Christ over any and all political ideologies, and especially any political ideology that is centered on the privileged status of white American exceptionalism.
A vibrant faith for the 21st century will therefore once again fall back on the teachings and the ministry of the Risen Lord as it utterly rejects any and every attempt to hijack Him or to use His name for nationalistic, political, secular gain.
Sharing is caring!
This op-ed on the ousting of the House Chaplain appeared too late to be cited in the article, but it’s a good illustration nonetheless: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/opinion-signorile-house-chaplain_us_5ae46cd1e4b04aa23f23713d?ncid=edlinkushpmg00000313
This is the sort of thing that the politicians who framed the constitution were trying to avoid. Separation of Church and State was a huge issue throughout the 16th Century, Wars were fought over minute differences in how folks worshipped – Christian “heresy” caused more Christian deaths than the crusades. I don’t have any issue with folks wanting to foist their beliefs onto others, I do have a problem, though, with folks who use their beliefs to cause more hate in the political arena. I rejected it when I was a youngster and our pastor advocated voting for JFK; I reject it now.
Thanks for taking the time to read my piece. May I ask a clarifying question? When you say you don’t have a problem with people trying to foist their beliefs on others, are you referring to the give and take of regular conversation, or are you including political coercion as part of that?
By the way, I love the word “foist” 🙂
I use the word foist to ascribe an advertent advocacy. Coercion is not necessary, but is present when one has authority over the recipient. I find it distasteful for those in authority to advocate actions to subordinates outside the purvue of their authority. Examples include a boss making sexual advances toward his employees. This article isn’t that obvious, but when a clergy advocates political actions, it is distasteful to me. Perhaps I”m too sensitive.
Got it. Thanks for the clarification.
As mentioned below, I’m actually arguing against the kind of clergy-political advocacy that you mention, but I realize that arguing against one form of advocacy can suggest or imply that I am arguing for the opposite form of advocacy.
Most importantly, I am trying to argue against the identification of faithful followers of the Risen Lord with ANY specific political position, be it of this current administration of the previous one.
Good to know since I know you are typically logical in your arguments and I found the last statement in your article to be in direct conflict with the former text since it seemed to me that the bulk of the article was a direct attempt to hijack deity to accomplish a political change.
“As I see it, the main danger now facing the American church is the co-opting of the American church for a specific political agenda – OK, a specific Republican, hard right Tea Party agenda – in the guise of Christian faithfulness.”
With all due respect, I disagree with your assessments.
I see the conservative movement as embracing the calling of Christ. The First Amendment guarantees free expression and practice of faith. Not the institutionalizations of faith. Freedom of expression is under attack these days in the guise of political correctness.
I simply don’t see where the state and church are blending. Yes, politicians are free to express their faith as a core personal value, but what is wrong with that? As long as the politician does not state he/she will legislate religion into law, the First Amendment stands intact.
First, and most importantly. I appreciate the cordial tone of your disagreement. Thank you for engaging in civil discourse.
Second, I want to apologize if I gave you the impression that no Christians should advocate for their faith. I believe that with all my heart, my soul, my mind, and my strength. I know many Christ-followers who would take a far different political stance than I would.
However, I would not wish a specific political agenda to be a litmus test for who is a genuine follower of Jesus. I see in Scripture advocacy for what might be considered more traditionally progressive policy positions, as I see advocacy for what might be considered more traditionally conservative policy positions. I am very uncomfortable with the idea that a Christian HAD to follow my political views or, say, Speaker Ryan’s political views in order to be a genuine follower of Jesus.
Henry, This reminds me of how certain folks on one end of the political spectrum like to lay claim to the identification of “Real American”.
Labels …. please consider your own hypocrisy
Matter, Are you inferring that I used a label? Not sure why you are labeling me a “hypocrite”.
I appreciate your response. I just have never heard the Speaker or any other politician state one has to follow their beliefs in order to be a believer.
With complete respect, I do believe you are putting words into others mouths.
I do hear politicians state their beliefs, but I do not hear the same state that if you do not follow their beliefs they are not a person of faith.
Please also consider the Left orthodoxy that if one does not follow their beliefs one is instantly a hater or ignorant.
In general, I am uncomfortable with labels. It shows bias and prejudice. Perhaps you may reconsider the labels you use?
Perhaps not the Speaker, whom I was using simply as an example.
However, if one tracks the discourse of the very far right Christians in the moment – Franklin Graham, Jerry Falwell, Robert Jeffers, and so on – their discourse is very much along these lines.
So apologies if the example was out of line or unhelpful.
Great column, Henry. You hit the nail on the head. I hope your message finds its way into the collective conscientiousness of other, far more unbending, Christians.
Excellent as always. Thanks.
Father Conroy has rescinded his resignation, referenced in my first comment to this page.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/house-chaplain-rescinds-resignation-after-furor-over-his-ouster-by-ryan/2018/05/03/b770de7c-4f07-11e8-84a0-458a1aa9ac0a_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.56147d2cfeb0