Statutes of Liberty (pt. 2 of 3): Spirituality or Supremacy?
So, this is part 2 of Statues of Liberty. If you weren’t able to read or listen to part 1, I encourage you to check it out, because that’s where I set up the series. But as you can probably gather from the title, we’re talking about liberties. All law-abiding, tax paying citizens, for the most part, have the same liberties (criminals have liberties too, but that’s not the focus of our conversation). But for decades, Christian Americans have been one of the biggest opponents of LGBT Americans having the right to exercise those liberties. But aside from the fact there doesn’t really seem to be a legal or constitutional basis for withholding rights from LGBT persons, I don’t even think there’s a Biblical basis for being in opposition of LGBT rights.
In part 1, I talked quite a bit about the separation of church and state. These institutions aren’t so separate, and not all religious traditions are viewed as equal. Here, I’ll expand on a second proposition.
Proposition 2: For whatever reason, law and policy seem to be the only Christian domains where consideration and perspective taking are no longer important, even though both are critical to being like Jesus.
It’s true. Jesus had this uncanny way of knowing what other people would be thinking and feeling. To be fair, He was God in the flesh, so He knew everything (John 21:17). But beyond that, on a leadership level, I think Jesus was great at being considerate and taking perspective… what’s interesting about that in the case of Jesus is Him being considerate and taking perspective never once compromised his ability to honor God.
Not once.
Not a single time.
It never compromised his holiness.
I think an important principle emerges. You can honor God, and be fully devoted to pleasing Him, while simultaneously being considerate and taking perspective. While these two things might seem to create tension, I’m confident this is the mark of a mature Christian. I think the corollary is true as well: the inability (or unwillingness) to be considerate or take perspective is the mark of an immature Christian. In case you’re wondering, that’s not intended to be a slighting remark. Maturity is an important theme throughout the Bible (I Corinthians 14:20; I Corinthians 13:11; Ephesians 4:14-15), and some Christians are more mature than others. That’s a central truth to growing in our ability to imitate Jesus.
But this notion of consideration and perspective taking is fundamental, especially considering the diversity of religious views present in America. The Bible, too, reinforces the importance of these principles.
I think about the Golden Rule, something that’s stated directly or indirectly across so many different world religions: “Treat others the way you would want to be treated,” (Luke 6:31; Matthew 7:12). I also think about Philippians 2:3-4 “Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interest, but also to the interests of others.” I think Romans 14 (vs. 16-18), also provides great insight: “Do not let what you regard as good be spoken of as evil. For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirt. Whoever thus serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men.”
I think far too often, Christians in America think having a Christian perspective on things means understanding what the Bible says is right or wrong.
But if you’re unwilling, or unable, to stop and take a non-Christian point of view, I don’t think you’re taking a Christian perspective… because part of having a Christian perspective is stopping to think how a non-Christian would view something. I think that’s especially true when it comes to politics, because there are 330 million people who live in America, and many of them aren’t Christians… and even among Christians, many, many of them don’t believe the things that you do.
I think the verses I highlighted underscore the notion that you can’t really have a Christian perspective on policy, perhaps especially LGBT rights, if you can’t engage in perspective taking. That would be fundamentally impossible to do… because that’s what Jesus would do. Moreover, these verses explicitly challenge Christians to treat others how they would like to be treated (even people with different religious views), consider other people’s interest (even the interest of people who don’t follow your religious tradition), and honoring God among men by keeping peace.
So, tell me again why you think being in support of oppressing a group and taking away their rights is the best way to preserve the integrity of the Gospel?
Tell me again how trying to convince America that law-abiding, tax paying citizens shouldn’t be able to exercise their rights is the best way to be like Jesus?
Walk me through the logic on how doing the Christian thing means being in opposition of LGBT persons being able to exercise their right to marry other adults they want to spend the rest of their lives with?
Maybe some examples would help. Because if we’re talking about perspective taking, maybe we need examples that can enhance perspective.
In some sects of Buddhism, they believe it’s wrong to eat meat. This is based on one of the central principles of their faith: “do no harm”. In fact, if it helps with the example, even some Christians believe it’s wrong to eat meat (albeit, they usually reserve this belief for themselves rather than imposing it on other Christians / non-Christians). Can you imagine a Buddhist person running for President and saying, “When I become President, my #1 goal will be to go after the food industry and abolish the consumption of meat. We need to honor Buddhist values, and the consumption of meat is a downright abomination.”
So many Americans would utterly HATE that. I’m sure even some Buddhist in America who eat meat would hate that. Steak. Hamburgers. Hotdogs. Chicken. Abolishing the consumption of meat would be such a huge disruption to our lives.
On a more personal level, most of us would say, “Why is your religion interfering with how I’m allowed to live my life? I never signed up to be Buddhist. So, why are you using Buddhism to dictate what I’m allowed to do?”
These are all important insights and a very fair critique of such a policy. It’s a terrible idea. Not because there’s anything wrong with Buddhism, and not because there’s anything wrong with vegetarianism… but because it doesn’t make sense to take something away from all Americans, because of religious views held by some Americans.
Maybe another example would help.
Many, many Mormons believe it’s wrong to drink coffee. Yes, you read that correctly. Coffee would be out of keeping with many Mormons’ religious views. Their religious text describes a diet that will enrich their ability to live a full and spiritually enriching life. And they believe if they adhere to principles in their religious text, they’ll run their race without growing weary or faint… so, why would you even need coffee? There are also some concerns about coffee being addictive, which also deters them from consumption. Say what you will about their health concerns, but I think their observation about coffee’s addictiveness are quite reasonable… I think lots (not all, but lots) of Americans are probably addicted to coffee and don’t even realize it, because it’s been years since they’ve gone more than a few days without it. But if you can be addicted to things like social media or video games, certainly you can be addicted to something like coffee.
I digress.
But can you imagine someone running for office and saying they plan to abolish coffee? Most of us would say that’s insane. Most of us would say, “If you think it’s wrong to drink coffee… then YOU shouldn’t drink coffee.” And I say this as someone who’s NEVER had a cup of coffee in my life… I don’t particularly care if coffee is legal or not… but I don’t think religious observance should be the reason for getting rid of it. Remember, we separated church and state, so that will never be a good reason to get rid of anything. There are lots of other reasons that you may say are good arguments, but that can’t be one of them.
Here’s my point. If you’re going to be a Christian, you have to be able to engage in perspective taking. Somehow though, I can’t help but feel like a lot of Christians think they show their zeal for their religion and devotion to their religious views by being unwilling to engage in perspective taking. As I’ve stated previously, it’s entirely possible for something to be out of keeping with your religious views and you still think people should have liberty to do it if they so choose.
That does bring up one related idea though. I’ve been thinking about this for awhile. I’m a little bit concerned about this notion of Christian Supremacy. And I’ll illustrate my point using the example of white supremacy, because that’s probably the form of supremacy sociohistorically that we’re most familiar with in the last 400 years. I don’t want to go on a tangent, because this is about LGBT rights and not about race, but White supremacy was this insidious notion that White is better, in every sense of the word.
It’s better than being Black. It’s better than being Asian. It’s better than being Hispanic. It’s better than being Native American. White is better. It just is. And it’s obvious.
Not surprisingly, that influenced the behavior of White people 400 years ago, and admittedly, I would still say that influences the behavior of many people, across all racial groups in America, today (outside America, too).
I think Christians in America can subscribe to this idea of Christian supremacy. Christianity is better than being atheist or agnostic. It’s better than being a Jehovah Witness. It’s better than being a Mormon. It’s better than being a Muslim. It’s better than being Buddhist. And the like.
It just is. And it’s obvious.
And again, you may say I’m being dramatic, but I would disagree. It may sting a little, but that doesn’t mean my observation isn’t accurate. While I don’t think most American Christians would explicitly say they think they’re better than anyone else of any other faith tradition, they show it in their behavior. In the way they approach policy, they effectively say, “I want my Christian views to have influence over your lifestyle, but I don’t want your religious views to have any influence over my lifestyle… because I’m a CHRISTIAN and that’s an attack on my religious freedom.”
Ummmm, okay. Sooooooo, how is that not supremacy? You understand how supremacy works, right? Supremacy is about hierarchy. And hierarchies, by definition, are rank-ordering systems. Think about the Olympics, right? This person is #1. This person is #2. This person is #3. And so on and so forth. And #1 comes before #2. And #2 comes before #3. And #3 before #4. So, with your approach to policy, you’re basically saying, “Christians are #1. I can justify people not being allowed to do something because of CHRISTIAN views, because Christians are #1. And Christians shouldn’t be required to do anything because of Muslim, Buddhist, Mormon, or Jehovah Witness views, because they’re all #2.” That’s called hierarchy. #1 is at the top of the hierarchy, so #1 will always be the most important.
Do you believe this country belongs more to Christians than it does other Americans? Do you believe this country belongs more to Christians than it does LGBT Americans? If your answer is no, there is ZERO (0) basis for taking away the rights of a law-abiding, taxpaying citizen because of your religious views. But if you do believe this country belongs more to Christians than it does other Americans, you have a perfect justification… but that’s also Christian supremacy.
Just call it what it is.
I want to unpack this idea a little bit more, because I don’t want my point to be misunderstood. Every religion, on some level, has some elements of rank-ordering built in. That is, almost every religion, on some level, has some type of hierarchy where they weigh and prioritize different types of views, ideas, and sometimes even people. That’s almost unavoidable. For instance, some religions are monotheistic (ie. one deity) and others are polytheistic (ie. multiple deities). So, if you participate in a monotheistic religion, Christianity included, your saying “THIS deity deserves worship, and no other deity does.”
That’s inescapable.
That happens in almost every religion. In 1st Century Christianity, making the statement “Jesus is Lord” wasn’t just a religious ordinance. That proclamation, wherever it was uttered, denounced other forms of authority and other things of worship, including Caesar (ie. a political figure), religious elites (ie. the Pharisees and Sadducees), and gods that were foreign to Christianity. Again, that’s a form of hierarchy. Jesus and Caesar were not considered equal. Jesus and the Pharisees were not considered equal. Jesus and the Sadducees… were not equal. Absolutely, there was, and is, a hierarchy. To be clear, it’s not a hierarchy that espouses hate, or oppression, or the like. But it still fits the definition of a hierarchy: it’s a rank ordering system. Jesus was, and is, always #1. I don’t think Christianity is unique in that regard.
Almost every religion I can think of weighs their religious views more than they do outsiders. So, in that sense, hierarchies aren’t necessarily distinguishing qualities for most religions, because most religions have a system wherein they order and rank ideas, views, and even people.
That’s kind of how religion works.
But the moment you say, “I want to take away the rights of other Americans because of the views in my particular faith tradition,” that’s not just religion any more… now you’re talking about using your religious views to oppress other groups of Americans… that’s not religion… that’s supremacy. This country doesn’t belong more to you than it does the people of all these other religious groups. So, this notion that you’re entitled to taking people’s rights away because you’re a Christian… or your voice should be louder, or carry more weight, or should be given more consideration… that’s not religion. That’s supremacy. It’s tricky, because it masquerades under the guise of religion, so you probably feel good about that… but it’s still supremacy.
It’s silly to suggests that, in spite of the diversity of religious views in America, Christians are the only religious group that should be allowed to control what other people are and are not allowed to do.
And I feel perfectly comfortable saying that as a Christian, because the Christianity that I subscribe to says people don’t become more or less important in society because of the religious views they hold. There are 7.6 billion people on the face of the planet, and every single one of them is important to God. So, every single one of them needs to be important to me. And they don’t become more or less important because they’re atheist, or agnostic, or Muslim, or Buddhist, or gay, or straight, or Black, or white, or whatever.
Christian supremacy is not Christianity. And I don’t think Jesus would have supported any such thing.
It makes me think about the scripture on loving your neighbor (Matthew 22:39; Mark 12:31). How do I really love my neighbor when I deeply internalize this view that what I think is more important than what my neighbor thinks, because they’re a Mormon and I’m a Christian. Can you imagine being in a friendship with someone over the course of 30, 40, or 50 years and they expect that anytime there’s a disagreement, you’ll concede to them because they’re going to be right. And you ask them how they know they’re always right, and they say, “I just have a really good feeling about it.”
Wouldn’t that be weird? I’m supposed to trust you everytime you disagree with me, just because you have a really good feeling about it? This is fundamentally absurd. But isn’t this, so often, what religious differences boil down to? Somebody believes in praying to multiple gods, and I only pray to one God (Yahweh), but we both have a really good feeling that we’re right? And obviously there’s a lot more to practicing a religion than that, but we’re both pretty confident about being right… we just have a good feeling about it… but I need to concede to them, every time.
This is absolutely ridiculous.
In the same way White Supremacy will prevent you from loving your neighbor, I think Christian Supremacy will prevent you from loving your neighbor. I don’t think you can truly love another adult and expect for them to always concede to your views and opinions.
To me, that idea is both unsound and unrealistic. What’s even more harmful is it masquerades under the guise of religious devotion, when in actuality, it strips people of their agency to make their own decisions (something God himself has never even done).
If you can’t see why it’s ill advised to advance a particular political idea that oppresses or subordinates other groups (religious or otherwise) just because you think it’s good for Christianity, I really don’t know what else to share at this point.
That’s my take though. Feel free to weigh in with your thoughts. I’ll share part 3 in a bit.
Nnam’