Although there is much in the article outlining Tim Farron’s withdrawal from political life I would want
to disagree with, it certainly exposes a modern-day truth: there is
tension between contemporary political liberalism and Christianity.
Here is the salient paragraph:
Tim Farron just resigned as leader of the U.K.’s Liberal Democratic party, and his statement explaining why should enter the history books: “To be a political leader — especially of a progressive, liberal party in 2017 — and to live as a committed Christian, to hold faithfully to the Bible’s teaching, has felt impossible for me,” Farron said.
The religious left will invoke
Scripture when it appears to support their chosen pieties (such as
social justice) and will condemn Scripture when it affronts their
moral choices (chiefly revolving around sex). In other words, their
invocation of Scripture is wholly opportunistic.
Setting aside the even greater and more
fundamental problem for the religious left (regarding the identity,
nature, and character of God Himself), there is a massive problem for
the religious left as they seek to hitch their faith to their
politics, a problem that has immediate and far reaching political
implications. And that problem is the nature of man.
Three definitive biblical propositions
expose the tension for the religious left. First, man is created in
the image of God (a proposition having huge implications on how human
life is treated, abortion, euthanasia, personal liberties, etc.).
Second, man is by nature a hopelessly corrupt sinner—a violator of
God’s law (a proposition which reaches into the foundations of
political/economic systems and determines whether they will, or will
not, result in human flourishing). Third, man is a morally
responsible creature that must be held accountable for his choices in
this life, and will be held accountable by God for his choices when
this life ends (a proposition touching on civil and criminal law,
social justice, and far more).
All three of these most basic
biblical assertions are rejected out of hand by the philosophic
underpinnings of leftist politics. For the thoughtful religious
liberal this causes tension, a cognitive dissonance that will
hopefully reach a crescendo demanding a personal reevaluation, as it has apparently done with Farron.
How do religious liberals handle the
tension? Some are simply unaware of either the foundations of their
politics or their faith, or both. Some choose to look the other way,
pretending not to see the problem. For others, I suppose, their
politics are more ultimate than their faith. But some, those who are
committed to their faith, will awaken to the problem—and do
something about it.
We all live with some degree of
cognitive dissonance. I personally find Christ-less conservatism far
more stinky than political liberalism. This short essay is not a
sales job for conservatism, nor a screed against liberalism. What it
is, is a challenge. Are the foundations of the political system you
support irreconcilably opposed to the foundations of the faith you
profess?
It’s a question worth asking.
No comments:
Post a Comment