Tags
Related Posts
Share This
A defense of the left
Throughout the course of many political discussions I have had, I have noticed a trend in my fellow believers’ reactions when I disclose my left-wing sympathies.
I have had the same experience when I have told people that I am studying politics. Initially, most people encourage me and voice their various opinions as to why there needs to be more Christians in the public arena. However, after my political affiliations are referenced, the encouragement wanes significantly. Usually, averted eyes, a telltale “oh,” and a less-than-convincing “that’s nice” follow my confession. Suddenly, it seems as if one more Christian in politics is a liability rather than a necessity.
For the most part, a substantial disapproval of left-wing politics seems to exist within Christian circles. This mainly has to do with the left’s more liberal stance on matters of morality.
Generally, those who identify themselves with leftist politics also have a tendency to support things such as abortion, same-sex marriage, and stem cell research – things that many people in the Church struggle to reconcile with Biblical principles. While some may criticize the Church’s disapproval of these policies, I believe it is perfectly legitimate to question the policies and their incompatibility with Christian doctrine.
But it is hard to justify the total rejection of the left-wing approach simply because of contention with a fraction of its agenda. After all, other aspects of the traditional leftist stance are very compatible with a Christian worldview. Tenets such as charity, justice, fairness, and recognition of human dignity are all visible in both Christianity and left-wing politics.
While some may try, it is next to impossible to read the Bible and deny the legitimacy of what the left has to teach us about economic structure. In fact, some of us in the church wonder if it would be wise to adopt a position of caution with respect to the right-wing stance on economy.
During my semester at the Laurentian Leadership Centre, I had the opportunity to meet with Reverend Bill Blaikie, MP for Elmwood-Transcona. He reminded me that the parties that possess the moral stance Christians find acceptable often maintain a laissez-faire approach to economic structure – a stance he found disconcerting. After all, safeguarding the poor is a common teaching in the Bible. I wonder how Christians in politics would look if they adopted this as their guiding principle. If this were the case, perhaps right-wing politics would not be so common among Christians.
Christians need to approach left-wing politics with an open mind and thoughtfulness instead of immediately dismissing it because of a few policies. As Christians, we need to remember that a person’s political position does not necessarily render them non-Christian.
In addition, churches should be a forum where various viewpoints can be discussed honestly and humbly, without some views being marginalized. Churches should not allow their buildings and services to be used as a vehicle for politicians to further their campaigns (as was the case with Stockwell Day in Canada’s 2000 federal election), or a meeting ground for the Fraser Institute.
A more open approach to differing views would not only lead to better understanding and respect among those of different opinions, but would also help to bring about the type of Christians that would be truly desirable in the political world.
It appears Endacott believes “charity, justice, fairness, and recognition of human dignity” are areas only found in the political left. Such views point only to the moral elitism that underline the political left.
Where the left differs from the Christianity on issue such as charity is in whose responsibility it is. Christians who identify themselves as voting left believe that because the bible pays a lot of attention to helping the poor that the state should have to do this. I disagree. In the new testament times people lived in about as laissez-faire as an economy as possible. You paid your taxes and the government left you alone. No rules, no regulations, no national standards. And yet the poor were still taken care of by their fellow Christians. The important thing to note is that the onus is on the individual, not the state to provide these works of charity.
In Matthew 25:31-37 says:
Notice how it is , “whatever YOU did”, not “whenever you paid your taxes to a state that assisted one of these”.
Therefore justifying the immoralities perpetrated by the left with the excuse their mindset on social justice is more biblical is a false argument. I have had several friends who vote NDP every election and they work for NGOs and other ‘social justice’ organizations, and they give nothing to charity and very little to the offering plate. their excuse is always, “well I spend my whole day working for social justice, that has got to count for something.” This is not how things were meant to be. I am most certainly a conservative, in every sense of the word, and I give a significant amount to charities and my church that actually do work alleviating poverty as opposed to spending their whole day talking about this.
These are the reasons the left doesn’t appeal to Christians, unless you are of the United or in some cases Anglican variety. But I guess it comes down to priorities. Morality or economics. Personally, I’d think that morality is a little more central to my faith than an economic perspective, and so that’s why I’ve never held much appreciation for the views of the left.
I read the article over a couple of times and couldn’t pin-point the area where the author indicated that those virtues mentioned were only found in the political left. What I did find was her opinion that the left espouses those virtues and that said virtues are in line with Biblical virtues therefore Christians shouldn’t be so afraid of left wing politics!
Now, concerning your use of Matthew 25:31-37. I wouldn’t necessarily disagree with you that the weight of responsibility lies with the individual, however, in the context of Jesus’ message and ministry I would strongly argue that his message was not to discrete individual people but to Israel as a whole (though individuals responded to it). Jesus was calling for God’s chosen, Israel, to change it’s obsession with purity and focus on compassion, Jesus was subverting the conventional wisdom of the time, look at who he dined with!
The economics of 1st century Palestine was not Laissez-Faire, if anything it was pre-industrial and agrarian, not exactly Free Market, nor capitalist. THe lower stratum social groups in 1st century Palestine made up at least 90% of the population, often they were in debt to landlords who were uninterested in the prosperity of the peasants. The NT (and the OT!) calls into question the priveleges the upper stratum groups enjoyed which the poor did not and hence called into question the government structures that encouraged this (see, James 2:1-12, Amos 2:6-8). The OT is full of references to social justice and personal action, from what you state in your post it appears you’re happy just to toss money at things and hope the left wingers who do the work can take care of it (though I could be misreading it). YHWH charged Israel (the country, the government, the kingship) with failing to take care of the poor! (See the HEbrew Prophets for extensive coverage of this point, see maybe Jer. 5:28 specifically)
Moralism in my view is a red-herring which distracts us from what the Bible and Jesus sees as central, caring for the poor, the widows, the orphans, the opressed, the stranger in our midst and the list goes on. Moralism also leads to moral elitism in Christianity. If I have seen this anywhere in Christendom it would have to be in my 12+ years at an Evangelical church in Calgary, Alberta (capital of the right wingers!)
If I’ve misrepresented you in anyway, please let me know. I think what we can take from this article is that the left has good things to offer as does the right!
I think “left” and “right” both have problems when it comes to Christianity.
I think Christians should look at things issue by issue and decide if they are right or not.
For instance, abortion: I honestly can’t see how a person can be a Christian and favor full-on abortion on demand.
Hey Chris, I absolutely agree with you on your first 2 points, seeking solutions which fail to incorporate both sides of the fence(^) is like reading half of a novel and still hoping that you’ll understand the whole story. This ideal is really important in Zen Buddhism, hence the yin-yang. The yin-yang denotes the middle way which must be taken when we find ourselves in between two opposing arugments while striving to preserve the wisdom of both sides.
(^) However, I must admit that their are many-a-sides to a fence, not just 2. Just Right and left is so boring.
Sarah- Good job for representing the left. Too often these days our world and especially the Christian community has been sucked in to believe that you have to be a Conservative to be a Christian. Working on the Hill this semester I have seen first hand MP’s and their staff from all political spectrums who are Christians. Thanks for offering another perspective and of course people should be mature enough to handle another view. Again, Trinity has way too many Conservative opinions and not enough Liberal or even NDP for that matter- we definitely need to branch out a little and get a broader perspective!!!
Josh,
The Bible says that “narrow is the way.”
So to some degree, our “perspective” shouldn’t be too “broad.”
Sarah, excellent work on showing the compatability of ‘the left’ with Christianity. You have incouraged an interesting, and hopefully beneficial, discussion. With regards to the first posted response, I would suggest that you might want to reconsider what ‘charity’ is meant to be. I can’t see how the detached donation of money is in any way similar to the traditional Christian concept of charity. I personally do believe that we, as Christians, are called to respond to those in need whether it’s emotionally, spiritually, financially, or in the many other ways which our neighbours are desirous of aid, and that the concept of ‘charity’ is demeaned when it is merely relegated to the wallet. I thank you all for your comments which I have enjoyed reading and considering. If I might also respond to the last above comment, I doesn’t seem to me the narrow way being referred to is a political way; but I haven’t really explored that. Thanks again.