Toward
a “Jesus Society”
by
Most. Rev. Dr. Robert M. Bowman, Lt. Col., USAF, ret.
Presiding Archbishop, United Catholic Church
The Place of Christians in a
Democracy
We Christians make up a clear majority in these
Our Constitution provides for freedom of religion.
Nowhere does it proclaim freedom “from” religion. The
But would this also free us to reshape our government’s policies in accordance with our Christian faith? The Constitution protects churches from interference by government. But does it also protect the government from interference by churches? I think the clear implication is that it does. No “church” should dictate government policy. But the Constitution clearly does NOT prohibit individual Americans from bringing their religious beliefs to bear in the voting booth. The question thus arises, “Since we Christians make up the majority, can we shape the government to our liking, and if so, should we?”
On the one hand, our republic was envisioned as much more than just a democracy. Majority rule is not the highest law of the land. After all, the tyranny of the majority is still
tyranny. That’s what we’re trying to
prevent the Shi’ites from doing in
Having said that, there is no reason why we should not pursue a government based on
Christian principles and carrying out policies in line with the teachings and example of
Jesus of Nazareth. After all, Jesus showed
time and again his respect for minorities in
For the most part, the moral values of Jesus are positive ones. Love one another. Care for widows and orphans. Sell all you have and give to the poor. Heal the sick. Visit the imprisoned. Clothe the naked. Feed the hungry. Embrace the leper. Forgive. Turn the other cheek. Go the second mile. Give drink to the thirsty. Empower the powerless. Return good for evil. Shelter the homeless. Who could complain about a society like that? Jesus taught that God loved the people – all the people – and wanted the institutions of society (both secular and religious) to serve the needs of the people. If we can attain a government which does that, who among our citizenry will object?
Actually, we can be quite sure that some will object. These are the elements of society now getting a free ride at the expense of the vast majority. They would include the billionaire owners of multinational corporations using New World Order institutions like the World Trade Organization to avoid taxes and circumvent the will of the people and the laws of our land. It might also include televangelists and leaders of big, wealthy churches, who use the tithes of the poor and working people to enrich themselves. Remember, Jesus didn’t please the secular and religious leaders of his day. So we shouldn’t be surprised if we don’t either. Nor should we let that deter us. Of course, they crucified him, and they may do the same to us. Personally, I’m willing to chance it. Dorothy Day once said that we measure our discipleship to Jesus by how much trouble we’re in. The famous Jesuit Father John Dear echoed that thought, “If we‘re going to follow Jesus, we are going to get into trouble. This is our calling.” So we should not mind if we incur the wrath of the rich and powerful with so much to lose. The vast majority of people will greatly benefit from living in a society which follows the teachings of Jesus (and therefore the will of God).
Provided we always remember to honor the dignity and rights of others, there is no reason we Christians should not proceed to build a “Jesus Society,” and make our government a part of it.
Conservative Christians have made some progress lately in raising their issues. But these efforts have sometimes been misguided. Lower taxes and a strong military may be desirable objectives. But they have nothing to do with Jesus, and are not Christian moral values on a par with protecting life, for example. It often seems like Christians are being used by Country-Club Republicans to further their corporate objectives and personal financial agendas.
Liberal Christians have fared even worse. They
tend to be overwhelmed and marginalized by secular liberals who have a profound disdain
for religion in general. The left tends not to
acknowledge the legitimate complaints of the right about the shallowness, selfishness, and
immorality of much of American culture (particularly that of TV and
In building our “Jesus Society,” Christians must reject both extremes, as both are driven by non-Christian, immoral motives. We must, instead, base our objectives and priorities solidly on the teachings and example of Jesus himself.
Elements of a
“Jesus Society”
We can describe a “Jesus Society” quite simply. Jesus did it for us. “Love God, and love your neighbor as yourself.” This sums up all the law and the prophets. All the rest is commentary.
Of course, some amplification and commentary is necessary. Jesus had to tell everybody what he meant by “neighbor.” Turns out it’s everybody, including those you don’t like. His example, of course, was the hated Samaritans, considered by the Jews to be heretics, half-breeds, and traitors. Another time, he was even more specific. “What good is it if you only love those who love you? No, you are to love your enemies. Do good to those who persecute you. Overcome evil with good.” He also spelled out what he meant by “love.” That’s the Ten Commandments, the Golden Rule, and the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus made it quite clear that we were to apply these to ourselves, not to others. “Judge not, lest you be judged,” “Let the one without sin cast the first stone,” and “Forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin against us.” His final bit of amplification was his discourse on the sheep and the goats, where he talked about feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting the sick and imprisoned, ending with , ”Amen, I say to you, ‘As often as you have done this for the least of our brothers and sisters, you have done it for me.’” This didn’t really add anything to “Love your neighbor.” It just emphasized its importance. That’s it. That’s the whole of it. Now all we have to do is apply “Love God and your neighbor” to government policy.
Love
God
Freedom of Religion
First, let’s deal with the “Love God” part. The task of government is to provide an environment in which each person is free to love God in their own way, without interference or intimidation. That’s what the First Amendment means when it says, “The government shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion or restricting the free exercise thereof.” In other words, there shall be no state religion, be it Christianity, Judaism, Mohammedanism, Secular Humanism, or anything else. Government shall show no partiality toward any one religion, nor disparage or ridicule any religion.
This is a difficult balancing act. Often local governments and school boards have gone overboard in their efforts to accommodate atheism, and have wound up marginalizing all other faiths. We must make sure that “Freedom of Religion” does not become “Freedom From Religion.” We Christians should work to get Christmas and Easter properly acknowledged in public schools, but we must also see that Hannukah and Passover get similar recognition. If we cannot do this in such a way that atheists and other religions are not intimidated and insulted, then we must stick with “Happy Holidays” and immerse our children in religion at home and at church.
It is crucial that every American is free to love God in his or her own way. At the same time, there is no reason why our government cannot openly proclaim its dependence on God. To have “Under God” in our pledge of allegiance and “In God We Trust” on our coins does no more than reflect the faith underlying the origin of our nation and its form of government. It favors no vision of God over another, and does not violate the First Amendment. To atheists who would claim it violates their rights, I’m afraid my response would be, “I’m sorry you feel that way, but I suggest you ‘get over it!’”
Love
Your Neighbor as Yourself
Respect for Life (Do Not Kill)
Abortion
The most contentious moral issue of the last few decades has been abortion. It has divided our people as no other. It is time to recall the spirit of Jesus and come together to resolve this tragedy in a way that respects life – both the life of the unborn and the life of the already living.
In crafting a Christian moral position on abortion, there is absolutely no guidance for us in either the words of Jesus or the Bible as a whole. Instead, we must rely on common sense, what science there is, and broad guidelines like the Golden Rule and our natural instincts. When you think about it, isn’t it strange that Christians (who believe in an after-life and believe that aborted fetuses go to Heaven to be with God) oppose abortion so vehemently (and in some cases, violently)? Atheists, who believe that this life is all there is, should be the ones most upset about babies being denied a chance to be born. Oh, well. I never was very good at understanding what makes atheists tick.
When I was running for president, I was often asked if I was
pro-life or pro-choice. My answer was,
“Yes.” I’m sure you can imagine
that as the father of seven children and the grandfather of 21, I am very much pro-life. As soon as I find out that one of the women in the
family is pregnant, I include their “new baby” in my daily prayers. I believe abortion is a tragedy. But I also believe it would be even more of a
tragedy to criminalize a woman who has one. I
think
Where I differ with
As a matter of practical politics in a pluralistic society, I think Roe v. Wade had it pretty close to right. Originally, it essentially barred states from restricting abortions in the first trimester (when enforcement of a ban would be impossible in any event), allowed states to require a good reason for second trimester abortions, and permitted states to ban abortions altogether in the third trimester. There was sound reasoning behind such differentiation. There’s a huge difference between a fertilized egg (most of which never attach to the uterine wall and result in a pregnancy) and an 8-month fetus capable of living on its own. To equate the morning-after pill with a late-term abortion is not morality, it’s lunacy. It’s time the American people ignored the extremists on both sides of this issue and worked out a way to make Roe v. Wade work as originally intended. Then as the social reforms of the “Jesus Society” come into being, the number of abortions will plummet.
More repression and legalism isn’t the answer. As always, the answer is love.
Capital Punishment
The Jesus we Christians follow both preached and practiced nonviolence. “Love your enemies. Turn the other cheek.
Overcome evil with good.” We know
them all by heart. But do we take them
seriously? Do we remember that Jesus himself
was a victim of capital punishment? “Father,
forgive them. They know not what they
do.”
We Christians respect the life of others. But
we have even greater concern for their souls. So
why on earth would we want a guilty criminal, a sinner, put to death before God has a
chance to change his heart and bring him to repentance?
Those who support the death penalty say that “Thou shalt
not kill” really meant “Thou shalt not murder.” So while killing an innocent person is wrong,
killing a guilty one is OK. To a secularist or
an atheist, that might sound right, but to a Christian it’s absolutely wrong! We should be much more loath to kill a guilty
person than an innocent one. If we kill an
innocent person (and I’m not recommending it), we are killing the body. But if we kill a guilty person, we kill the soul as
well. We play God. We take vengeance out of God’s hands. We thwart God’s mercy, forgiveness, and saving
Grace. How dare we!!
The
War
The Christians of the first three centuries understood and practiced (as best they
could) the nonviolence of Jesus. It was
unthinkable for Christians to take up arms against another human being. Christians were not even allowed to testify against
murderers or perpetrators of other capital offenses, for they could indirectly be causing
the death of the accused. The Church
flourished, nurtured by the blood of martyrs who would rather die than kill.
Then in the fourth century, the Church sold out to
But let’s assume for a moment that Christians can in good conscience believe
in the “Just War Theory.” Would that
justify the wars of our recent presidents (both Republican and Democrat)? Absolutely not!
None of this country’s recent military ventures have come even close to
satisfying the eight criteria of the “Just War Theory.” (For a detailed exposition of these criteria and
their application, see “A Christian
View of War” on the web site www.rmbowman.com/catholic
.) If anyone who claims to be a Christian
supports this country’s war against
If, however, you are a real Christian, a true follower of Jesus, then all the
legalistic wrangling over the eight criteria is immaterial.
For you, there can never be such a thing as a “Just War.”
If the
Therefore, a moral political position on defense in this multicultural nation might
have to include retention of a “Self-defense Force” similar to
A moral defense policy would also recognize and honor those who proclaim
“selective conscientious objector” status. This
would allow Christians and others who believe in the “Just War Criteria” the
right to apply them to any conflict and refuse to fight in a war they believe is in
violation. Currently, “Conscientious
Objector” status is only allowed to Quakers and others of us who declare themselves
pacifists against all wars. This is improper
discrimination against those Christians who follow Augustine and Thomas Aquinas.
Hopefully, after a few years of our carrying out a moral foreign policy and doing
good around the world, no foreign groups will continue to harbor resentment and hatred for
us. Acts of terrorism against us will cease. Eventually, it will become clear, even to our
non-Christian citizens that we have no need for armed forces, because no one is going to
attack us. At that time our transitional moral
policy can be transformed into a truly Christian policy and our armed forces disbanded
completely. A “Jesus Society” will
beat its swords into plowshares and teach war no more.
The Environment
Our Christian duty to preserve life extends to caring for the environment,
God’s creation, upon which all life depends. Some
Christians have been taken in by the “Rapture Cult” which teaches that we
don’t need to care for the environment, because God is about to destroy the world
anyway. As Reagan’s Secretary of the
Interior James Watt once said, “When the last tree is gone, Jesus will come.” (Unsaid is that those who push this idea are those
who reap financial profits from raping the environment – the oil and logging
industries, the chemical and paper industries, ad nauseum.)
Recently, some Evangelical Christians have finally begun to see that this is wrong. We really don’t know when God is going to end
the world. The early Christians were firmly
convinced that it would happen in their lifetimes. And
if the end is not imminent, then we owe it to our children’s children to care for
God’s creation. If our lives do not
depend on the decisions we make now about global warming, depleted uranium, toxic waste,
deforestation, the health of the seas and the coral reefs and the rain forest, the lives
of our grandchildren certainly do. “Love
one another” applies to them, too.
Respect for Human Dignity; Justice for All
Health Care, Welfare, Jobs, Education, & Other Basic Human Rights
I don’t know
anyone who disagrees that Christian morality requires that we
care for the less fortunate. The disagreement
comes over how to do it. The Christian right
says let individuals and churches do it. Charity
should be voluntary, not coerced. The
Christian left says let us pay for it through our taxes.
Here I must strongly agree with the left. Individuals
seldom reach out beyond their own family. Churches
in the suburbs seldom reach into the inner cities to do their charity. And churches in the inner city try, but don’t
have the resources. As a practical matter, if
government doesn’t take care of the needy in the ghetto, it isn’t going to get
done. Besides, in a land as affluent as ours,
it isn’t a matter of charity. It’s a
matter of justice.
The only just and moral way to handle these issues is by government providing a
basic standard of existence as a right, and paying for it with a graduated tax on
individuals and on corporations. Historically,
this has been the income tax. More and more,
these essential services are paid for (if at all) with a highly regressive tax (Social
Security’s FICA for bare subsistence retirement income, Medicare’s Part B flat
fee for medical care for the elderly, and property taxes for education). In such taxes, the burden falls heaviest on those
least able to pay, the working poor paying a much higher percentage of their income than
the very wealthy. The last remaining
progressive tax, the income tax, has been slashed to such an extent that essential
services are more and more falling on the states, counties, and cities, who have to raise money through less progressive taxes. The net result has been an overall tax increase for
the working class and middle class, and a huge bonanza for the super-rich. Naturally, the gap between rich and poor in this
country has become a yawning chasm, greater than that in any other developed country. This is truly immoral.
The right wing is fond of saying that redistribution of wealth is wrong and
wouldn’t do any good, anyway, because there aren’t enough rich people to really
make a difference. That is untrue. Redistribution of wealth has been going on for
decades, but it has all been from the bottom to the top.
It’s time for some to go the other way. If
just the world’s billionaires gave up only half their wealth, they could provide
food, clothing, shelter, clean water, and basic medical care to every person on earth, and
could double the income of half the people on the planet.
I’d say that would make a difference. But
it’s not going to happen as long as the billionaires own both major political
parties, and also own the media outlets.
What is truly immoral is that the super-rich have such control over the political
process and the media that neither major political party even raises the prospect of
fundamental changes for the benefit of all. A true single-payer national health system? Forget it! Jobs for all at a living wage? Not
a chance! Strengthening
Social Security by removing the earnings cap on taxable wages? No way! Such
ways of fulfilling our moral responsibility to our neighbor are ridiculed by the media and
ignored by both national parties. Thank
goodness we occasionally have a lonely voice raising such issues. What a pity the media largely ignores such voices.
These issues should be debated. Let’s
talk about their practicality and argue over their cost.
But that dealing with them is a moral imperative in any just society (and even more
so in a “Jesus Society”) should be obvious to all, and we should say so. To ask a follower of Jesus to vote against a
national health system, full employment, and a livable wage should be like asking an
alligator to vote for draining the swamp.
Homosexual Rights
I support human rights; and the last time I checked, homosexuals were human beings. So by definition I support homosexual rights. They should have the same rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as anyone else, and that includes the right to be free from discrimination and harassment. From a moral and societal point of view, we should all oppose promiscuity, whether gay or straight. We tell our straight teenagers to "Save it for marriage." But what do we tell our gay teenagers to save it for? Now, many people are uptight about the word "marriage." They want it used exclusively for the union of a man and a woman. OK. So let's call a monogamous commitment between gays or lesbians "pairage." But for goodness sakes, we must encourage it, whatever it is called. We can no longer doom homosexuals to a lifetime of celibacy, closeted deceit, or promiscuity. We must hold out the hope of being able to live in a lifelong relationship, and to have that relationship recognized by society and given all the legal rights, responsibilities, and privileges that accrue to married heterosexual couples.
Inerrantists will wonder how I can square these views with my Christian faith. My answer is, “Very easily.” I am not an inerrantist. Thousands of years ago, the writers of the Biblical texts did not know what we do now. They did not know that homosexuals are born that way and therefore made by God. (And God don’t make junk!) My view of Christian sexual morality is clear. Sex is good. It is one of God’s greatest gifts. What’s more, God gave human beings the unique ability to have sex at any time of the month. So its purpose is more than procreation. There is nothing intrinsically evil about any sexual act. The key is love. Sex is sinful if it is promiscuous, exploitive, forced, bought, or devoid of commitment and love. One’s gender or gender preference has little to do with it. I firmly believe that my view of sexual morality is in tune with Jesus and therefore with the mind of God.
Others may believe differently. I will not try to force my views on them. If they believe that homosexual acts are sinful, they are free not to engage in them. They are even free not to bless them in their particular churches. But they shouldn’t try to force their narrow views on everyone else through governmental edict or Constitutional amendment. To do so is to follow the Pharisees, not Jesus.
It should be left up to individual churches whether they choose to bless the union of a homosexual couple with a sacramental wedding. Churches have the right to establish requirements for their services, without governmental interference. But for government at any level to deny a gay couple the legal contract made available to heterosexuals is immoral and illegal discrimination. It is also counterproductive for society at large. As a society, we must no longer hide behind the fiction that homosexuality is a “choice.” What teenager would choose the shame, discrimination, persecution, ridicule, rejection, loneliness, and sky-high suicide rates of the homosexual? No, these people are children of God who deserve the chance to go through life with a partner of their choosing.
A Christian
Political Agenda
Christians of the left and of the right must
recognize that we have a common interest in building a “Jesus Society.” In doing so, we must respect our democracy,
including its protections for the rights of minorities with which we disagree. Let’s work to promote candidates that speak
the truth and support a truly Christian political agenda.
Let’s debate the morality of various policies.
And let’s make sure that the “moral values” that win the day are
ones that Jesus could relate to. Let’s
replace the moral values of Leviticus with those of the Sermon on the Mount. Then instead of continually mouthing “God
bless