My ears perked up when I heard a self-described evangelical defend recent comments by Indiana senatorial candidate Richard Murdouck, in which he acknowledged God's role in bringing about human life even in cases of rape and incent, on NPR's Morning Edition today. Sadly (and perhaps not surprisingly, given the venue), after Amy Sullivan explained that finding God at work in the worst of circumstances is a staple of both Christian and Jewish theology, she proceeded to reject this doctrine in favor of a god who is not involved in, much less in control of, all events in his creation.
Perhaps more surpisingly, Ms. Sullivan went on to explain that a politician should not impose his moral convictions, derived from religious beliefs, upon others. Ms. Sullivan views these religious beliefs as being merely personal decisions which, given their private character, cannot, by definition, be made normative for other people.
This is a passingly odd position for an evangelical to take. When I traveled in evangelical circles during my eccentric youth, Christ's death as a substitute for sinners was a doctrinal staple. For that to be true, all humanity must be fallen and sinful, and every person has fallen short of God's moral standards which apply universally. That is, if the Christian Gospel is true, it is true only because God has imposed objective moral standards on his creatures; on that principle, a politician might very reasonably argue that abortion violates those standards. Privatized religion simply does not cohere with the public character of the Christian Gospel.
If one wishes to have the Gospel, then there are universal moral standards which a politician might legitimately seek to apply to our nation's laws. In other words, if one believes religious convictions are entirely private, one cannot have the Gospel.
No comments:
Post a Comment