First, I love history. I always have. I have a major in journalism but with almost enough hours for another major, in history. I went to graduate school at Georgia State for about a year to get a masters in history (I didn't finish because I was working for a daily newspaper, which seriously cut into the time I had to fulfill the obligations required by graduate school).
In troubled times, history gives me great comfort. I can look back and see other periods that were just as bad - if not worse - than whatever trouble the world seems to be in today. Maybe that comfort keeps me from being as riled up as perhaps I should be about some issue, but it also keeps me from the panic that I'd probably feel if I didn't have some historical context.
Recently I was a news clip of a debate between two talking heads on a TV cable show. They were arguing and one said, "but surely you realize that, historically ..." such and such (whatever his point was). The other person's response was, "No, this position has been held historically too. If you go back to the 1970s ..."
And of course I thought, "The 1970s! All the way back to the 1970s! Why, that's ancient history!" It's also when I graduated from high school, and from college.
See? It is ancient history!
Another recent exchange on social media had someone telling me that the youth of today are not "snowflakes" because they've grown up in a "perpetual state of war" and terror alerts, lost their homes when their parents lost their jobs, watched people get shot in the streets while holding their hands up saying 'don't shoot' .... And while that's all true, it's hardly unique. I could go back to any number of times in history that were just as bad for young people, if not worse. Heck, I remember watching the lottery to see what my number would be, knowing that while I was in high school and wouldn't be drafted to go to Viet Nam, I had friends that could be. I remember National Guard patrolling college campuses, even shooting students at Kent State; not to mention young people getting beat up and killed for voting rights, integration, and education. I read stories of the 1930s when people were losing their homes and parents sometimes were forced to abandon their oldest child because they couldn't take care of all the children and the oldest had a chance to make their own way - and by "oldest" we're often talking about 13 and 14 year olds. Go back to the late 1800s and read stories of the old West, and girls as young as 15 and 16 being turned into prostitutes while young boys the same age were out on the range skinning buffalo or driving cattle or even, in some cases, becoming lawmen or outlaws.
And that only takes us back a 150 years or so. That's hardly a tick on the face of the clock of human history.
I'm not saying one generation had it any better or any worse, just that every generation has faced its own set of challenges and been forced to learn how to deal with it, to either overcome or be "overcomed." That is much of what makes the human race so remarkable.
Even so, when it's your life that is facing whatever difficulties exist, when you're the one in the middle of the struggle, it's hard to take comfort in the idea that people have survived worse. Each of us lives with our own reality, and while we can say "Oh, what I'm going through hardly compares with this or that,'' the truth is that what you are dealing with is what is keeping you up at night, causing you to worry for your safety or the safety of your family, or wonder about the well-being of the world.
A few weeks ago, I had one of those moments when I wondered just what era we're moving into here in the United States. I have talked about persecution of Christians and the church and had fellow-believers tell me they just don't see it, that they don't think things are really all that bad, and that what we see as persecution (at least in this country) may just be brought on by the obnoxiousness and even hypocrisy of Christianity in the U.S.
And certainly some of that is true.
But then a few weeks ago, in a hearing held by the U.S. Senate, a Senator with a considerable national following had the following exchange with a presidential nominee who identified as a Christian.
(I'm not using names, because personalities are not the point here).
Senator: Let me get to this issue that has bothered me and bothered many other people. And that is in the piece that I referred to that you wrote for the publication called Resurgent. You wrote, “Muslims do not simply have a deficient theology. They do not know God because they have rejected Jesus Christ, His Son, and they stand condemned.” Do you believe that that statement is Islamophobic?
Nominee: Absolutely not, Senator. I’m a Christian, and I believe in a Christian set of principles based on my faith. That post, as I stated in the questionnaire to this committee, was to defend my alma mater, Wheaton College, a Christian school that has a statement of faith that includes the centrality of Jesus Christ for salvation, and . . .
Senator: I apologize. Forgive me, we just don’t have a lot of time. Do you believe people in the Muslim religion stand condemned? Is that your view?
Nominee: Again, Senator, I’m a Christian, and I wrote that piece in accordance with the statement of faith at Wheaton College:
Senator: I understand that. I don’t know how many Muslims there are in America. Maybe a couple million. Are you suggesting that all those people stand condemned? What about Jews? Do they stand condemned too?
Nominee: Senator, I’m a Christian . . .
Senator (shouting): I understand you are a Christian, but this country are made of people who are not just — I understand that Christianity is the majority religion, but there are other people of different religions in this country and around the world. In your judgment, do you think that people who are not Christians are going to be condemned?
Nominee: Thank you for probing on that question. As a Christian, I believe that all individuals are made in the image of God and are worthy of dignity and respect regardless of their religious beliefs. I believe that as a Christian that’s how I should treat all individuals . . .
Senator: You think your statement that you put into that publication, they do not know God because they rejected Jesus Christ, His Son, and they stand condemned, do you think that’s respectful of other religions?
Nominee: Senator, I wrote a post based on being a Christian and attending a Christian school that has a statement of faith that speaks clearly in regard to the centrality of Jesus Christ in salvation.
Senator: I would simply say, Mr. Chairman, that this nominee is really not someone who this country is supposed to be about.
Several things here. One, this line of questioning may well be unconstitutional, because it suggests that the nominee's religious views disqualify him from holding public office. The Constitution clearly says that no federal office holder or employee can be required to adhere to or accept any particular religion or doctrine as a prerequisite to holding a federal office or a federal government job. While the Senator is not trying to hold the Nominee to a particular religion, he does seem to be saying that holding any religious views whatsoever disqualify him from service in the public square.
Even more surprising is that an elected official openly ridiculed and questioned the patriotism of orthodox Christian teaching, and did so likely knowing he could count on support from many of his colleagues and, I suppose, many of the people who elected him to office from his home state.
If you believe you should have to leave your religion outside when you step into the state house, then you've implemented a "religious test" as a qualification for leadership. It's kind of a "reverse" test, in that it says you have to be able to say your faith won't influence you in making decisions, but that's still a test. And what good is faith if it doesn't affect your judgment?
I'm not arguing for one particular faith or religion here (even though, if you read this blog, you know where I stand). Here is what the Founders said:
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams.
"Religion and morality are the essential pillars of civil society." - George Washington.
"[F]or avoiding the extremes of despotism or anarchy . . . the only ground of hope must be on the morals of the people. I believe that religion is the only solid base of morals and that morals are the only possible support of free governments. [T]herefore education should teach the precepts of religion and the duties of man towards God." - Gouverneru Morris (signer of the Constitution).
"[T]he only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be aid in religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments. Without religion, I believe that learning does real mischief to the morals and principles of mankind." - Benjamin Rush, signer of the Declaration of Independence.
"Men, in a word, must necessarily be controlled either by a power within them or by a power without them; either by the Word of God or by the strong arm of man; either by the Bible or by the bayonet."-Robert Wintrhop, Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Still, perspective .... it's easy to see the open antagonism toward the Christian faith and feel we're in a new era of persecution. We're not. It's been this way from the beginning. The New Testament is really a record of the conflicts, both within the church and from without. And rarely is the issue cut and dry; good, well-meaning people have taken difficult sides in matters of church-state, theology-society, and what helping the "least of these" really means.
But we take comfort not only in knowing history, and in knowing the future: God wins. Christianity has faced times of persecution (including today), and has had times of political and cultural power (as it still does in some places today).
What doesn't change is God.
And that's where my hope - my optimism, if you will - resides.
No comments:
Post a Comment