Conversion theology has its comfortable, upholstered aspect. If one genuinely recognizes the error of one’s past ways, and ceases those activities, then one is absolved from responsibility. Wives and children of drunken or violent men are not as forgiving as Jesus.
In politics, the implications are more pernicious. George Wallace, Billy Graham and Lee Atwater all have voiced regrets about consequences of their past behavior, but their confessions do nothing to undo the evil they abetted.
Atwater was responsible for George Bush’s Willy Horton campaign. As a southerner, he should have known he was appealing to racism and bigotry. He may have recognized his mistake, but racism is still more respectable than it was. If it weren’t, it wouldn’t be so easy to stir hatreds against brown skinned immigrants from México and Central America.
Billy Graham, no doubt, felt he was doing God’s work when he became an unofficial advisor to Richard Nixon. He may later have realized counseling Nixon tarnished his reputation, but he never eschewed the lure of the powerful. His actions may have had no effect on the active involvement of fundamentalist ministers in politics today, for they had the example of Black preachers before them. Still, he gave the changing view of religion and the state legitimacy with common folk it might not have had.
George Wallace is more complicated. He had no inhibitions about using race for political gain in Alabama. It was only after he was shot and saw the people he opposed adopt his rhetoric that he began to address Black crowds, sometimes asking for forgiveness.
His attempts were greeted with skepticism, especially if the press was notified. Rosa Parks was angry when photographers were there after she met with him; reporters were present when he addressed the Dexter Street Baptist Church of Martin Luther King.
At the same time, Dan Carter tells us, Wallace had meetings with other, less famous people in Alabama, with no fanfare. Many felt his contrition was genuine. But some still remembered the viciousness of his attacks on people they knew, and could not forget.
Evangelistic religions conceal a paradox. They must appeal to the unregenerate to succeed. If the worst are to be saved, then the worst must be forgiven. An evangel Christian can not accept the existence of a person who cannot be redeemed. Alas, this means there is no crime which cannot be excused.
When evangelism remains on the frontiers of society, is a buffer between civilization and the barbarians, it is useful to the survival of the commonwealth. When it moves into the center, it brings a debilitating acceptance of lawlessness.
Since most recognize lawlessness is bad, evangels retreat to question the sincerity of repentance on the grounds that if a change can be doubted, then a criminal can be executed. At one time, Methodists expected the saved to go through a period of testing before they were fully accepted into the church.
The problem with a waiting period is that it suggests redemption is conditional. Today, the answer to the dilemma is love the sinner, hate the crime. The individual is separated from his or her actions.
Many reject this logical consequence of salvation as too radical. They know crimes exist with no statute of limitations, that crimes exist with absolute death penalties. They elevate those actions over regret by the criminal. They recognize the state must impose limits on their evangelist impulses.
When evengels are uncomfortable with unconditional acceptance, then converts must continually prove themselves, even if churches have eliminated waiting periods. New believers are encouraged to establish their bonafides by only mixing with the saved, shunning the dammed, avoiding temptation and contamination.
Once one learns to use external evidence of salvation to arbitrate human interaction, it is easy, neigh necessary, to extend that criteria to politics. Some are willing to support Jose Efraín Ríos Montt in Guatemala, simply because he is a convert. Similarly, others still distrust Russia because it once forsook religion, but can’t quite condemn fascists and Nazis who upheld the church, as if quantifying the dead is sufficient to elevate the lesser murderer over the greater in God’s eyes.
Reducing the complexities of religion to simple, verifiable behaviors may be the most pernicious aspect of forgiving the excesses of the convert, for it allows history to be rewritten and judgement suspended.
Sources:
Anonymous. "Billy Graham," Wikipedia on internet, 2006.
Anonymous. "Harvey Leroy ‘Lee’ Atwater," Wikipedia on internet.
Carter, Dan T. Carter. The Politics of Rage: George Wallace, The Origins of the New Conservatism and the Transformation of American Politics, 1995.
No comments:
Post a Comment