Many Evangelical leaders say that they are in a quandary in terms of whether or not they should choose between Donald Trump or Hilary Clinton in the ongoing presidential campaign in the United States. Borrowing from an idea first voiced by Paul Ryan, the Republican Speaker of the House, they now say that what they are faced with is a "binary choice" that calls for a decision to be made. What this means is that in their moral odyssey, they have come to a fork on the road and have to decide which way to go. The decision however does not appear to be based on any moral formation or transformation but on a coin toss. One may take one way or the other but, by all means, one needs to take one way if there is going to be any continuation of the journey. Not to pick one side is irresponsible. Here we see a cobbling of situation ethics and atheistic existentialism brought together to address an apparent ethical dilemma.
Apart from the fact that this statement of the issue creates a false dilemma (there are in fact many other morally appropriate actions to take), the gospel call for Christian actions to be based on a moral formation that transforms the mind is jettisoned for an amorality that is solely based on political calculation judged by proximity to power. One of the flimsiest display of this is the claim that with Donald Trump there is going to be protection of religious freedom in America. This is a claim that blows the mind of anyone who is aware of the actual lack of religious freedom in other places around the world compared to the dominance of the Christian faith in the United States. This leads one to wonder whether this claim is merely a front to cast a vote for a person whose morality is more Nietzschean than Christian, given that it lacks the pretense of discernment. What kind of religious freedom are Evangelicals seeking in America? Is it the freedom to practice Christianity in the public sphere to the exclusion of all other worldviews or is it to give equal voice to all religions in America? The hypocrisy of the call to religious freedom in America would make Coptic Christians in Egypt think that they have it really good. Instead of claiming a persecution that does not exist, American Evangelical Christians would do well to form Christians whose spirituality are mature enough to discern the signs of the times and to identify an oppressed people when they see one.
Apart from the fact that this statement of the issue creates a false dilemma (there are in fact many other morally appropriate actions to take), the gospel call for Christian actions to be based on a moral formation that transforms the mind is jettisoned for an amorality that is solely based on political calculation judged by proximity to power. One of the flimsiest display of this is the claim that with Donald Trump there is going to be protection of religious freedom in America. This is a claim that blows the mind of anyone who is aware of the actual lack of religious freedom in other places around the world compared to the dominance of the Christian faith in the United States. This leads one to wonder whether this claim is merely a front to cast a vote for a person whose morality is more Nietzschean than Christian, given that it lacks the pretense of discernment. What kind of religious freedom are Evangelicals seeking in America? Is it the freedom to practice Christianity in the public sphere to the exclusion of all other worldviews or is it to give equal voice to all religions in America? The hypocrisy of the call to religious freedom in America would make Coptic Christians in Egypt think that they have it really good. Instead of claiming a persecution that does not exist, American Evangelical Christians would do well to form Christians whose spirituality are mature enough to discern the signs of the times and to identify an oppressed people when they see one.
No comments:
Post a Comment