Armchair Sociologist Part 1

My bud Streak is probably about the only person who reads this, so I tend to write assuming he'll be the one reading it. He often wrestles in his blog with how masses of Christians can follow a leader who claims to be a Christian but, in his (and my) opinion exhibits policies and behaviors in total contrast to those promoted by Jesus, the "Christ" in "Christian". Here is part one of a few thoughts I have on the subject. This is by no means exhaustive, but here goes. I think that it is fairly well accepted that there are several foundational beliefs or assumptions upon which most, if not all, of our other beliefs are built. "There is a God", "the world is flat", "the world is round", "the earth is the center of the universe", "Jesus was the son of God", "There is no God but God and Mohammed was his prophet", "the atom is the basic building block of matter". The list could go on and on. The evangelical Christians with whom I spent a good bit of my life have as a base belief or assumption that "salvation", as they define it, is the most important event in a human being's life. It is so important, in fact, that it supersedes and transcends ANYTHING else in one's life. While this statement may seem self evident, I point it out because so many behaviors, attitudes, policies, and beliefs hinge on this fundamental assumption.

Examples of how I've experienced this assumption in action are varied. To start, from childhood I was taught that "accepting Christ" was the most important event in my life. All teaching was designed to lead me to that point of decision. Good behavior was important, but only in a secondary way. We were taught that any admirable qualities in other people who weren't "saved" were simply good behaviors that wouldn't earn the person eternal life. The effort to deemphasize the good behavior of non-Christians communicated to us that behavior was important, but only if you were saved. In face, a saved person who behaves badly is still better off than a "lost" person who behaves admirably. We were convinced that this "lost" person who is outwardly good and seems happy, is really only putting on a shell of good works and false happiness. Only we saved people are truly happy, even when we're "backsliding". Nevermind that society at large benefited from "good" behavior. The focus was whether or not it got you "eternal life". To the unfamiliar this may sound like reasoning that could work with a child, but surely adults wouldn't buy into it. Sadly, I was in Sunday School a couple weeks ago and heard basically this same argument presented but with more sophisticated wording- "It counts for them nothing". Poetic, isn't it. So, we are brainwashed from childhood to put critical thinking on hold and accept that being "saved" trumps everything.

Flash over to politics. This same thinking says that criticism of a leader is trumped by his or her being saved. Your criticism of my saved leader is always going to be suspect, especially if you aren't a saved Christian yourself. In that case you are part of the conspiracy to undermine Christianity.

I have had this same type of exchange with Muslim friends. The context was several years ago when the first reports were coming out about Osama bin Laden. Several things were part of the discussion. I suggested that the reports were true- that bin Laden was behind terrorist activities. My Muslim friend, a person who had never participated in an act of violence in his life nor would he, was convinced that bin Laden was not responsible. He was NOT saying that bin Laden was responsible and justified. Quite the opposite- he said that the terrorism was an abomination but that a man with bin Laden's religious piety could not take part in such acts. "Bin Laden reads the Q'ran every day, prays 5 times a day, gives to the poor, etc.... He could not do such things. The West hates Islam and is making up things about him to cover up the real culprits." My friend had accepted the foundational assumptions that a person who talks the religious talk and displays the "correct" religious behaviors was not capable of doing these bad things. He was automatically given the benefit of the doubt over any criticism from someone outside of the Islamic world. I will say that since those conversations my friend has come around to understanding that bin Laden is largely responsible, but there is still always a feeling of reluctance to fully accept that there isn't another explanation.

Why include this account? I think the same principles are at play. Assume "our people" are right. Criticism is persecution of all of our principles. Ignore behaviors that aren't consistent with what we know to be right in order to protect our agenda. Others smarter than me can probably draw more parallels and conclusions.

So, for Streak and me the indoctrination started early in life. Fire insurance, or salvation as defined by our fundamentalist teachers, was top priority. I see salvation as a process for some, maybe a moment for others. I see behavior as important, particularly when it comes to the responsibility of the powerful toward the powerless. Truth is critically important, even if it undermines our agendas and embarrasses our leaders. I believe that God disdains evil behavior from those who claim to be his followers and I believe he is glorified by good works done by anyone- follower or not. I'll not play my-verse-versus-your-verse right now- maybe later.

The second big component of the Bush Christian following I think has to do with the "Agenda", i.e. at the bottom of it all is a leader who has bowed to "our" agenda, and that's even more important that whether or not he says he's a Christian. But that's for part 2, unless I get sidetracked........