It's hardly news that political idolatry is a growing problem among Americans who consider themselves Christians.
We've all been treated to the excessive amount of airtime and social media space given to dire warnings about Christian nationalism, fundamentalism, theonomists, and theocrats roaming our streets.
But while most warnings about the religious left revolves around their devotion to bizarre secular cults like transgenderism:
Or climate alarmism:
… the truth is that the religious left has a plethora of Christian nationalists who are more than content to bastardize the word of God in order to serve their political interests.
Case in point:
I don't know this man who calls himself "reverend." I have nothing against him personally, but it is not difficult in the least to see him bowing before the idol of politics, as he attempts to convince everyone to do the same by ham-fistedly pointing to how neatly God's perfect word fits into the political platform of the modern Democrat Party. It's embarrassing.
Here's a thought experiment to demonstrate how tragically transparent all this is to a discerning believer.
Suppose a certain individual, be it Donald Trump or whoever, gave large portions of their own personal income to feed the hungry. Suppose they even founded a food bank in Appalachia and financed 75% of its yearly expenses with their own dollars. They gave freely from what they had to put food in the stomachs of the destitute and impoverished.
Simultaneously, they believed that government food-assistance programs (like SNAP) were fraught with abuse, mismanagement, were terribly inefficient, and therefore favored their reduction or elimination. Would such a person have failed Christ's call to "feed the hungry?"
Or suppose a certain individual worked tirelessly to end human trafficking. They contributed freely and even volunteered with organizations like Doctors without Borders. When they saw someone in need, they responded lovingly and generously, utterly unconcerned with that person's ethnicity, race, or nationality.
They also believed that the rule of law was a necessity in any civil society, and that the government was endangering the lives and livelihood of its citizens if they failed to enforce it. Would such a person have failed Christ's command to care for the "stranger?"
Suppose a person used their medical knowledge to open a free clinic for the inner city poor, but they also believed that Medicaid was a bloated regulatory agency that was causing more harm than good. Or suppose a person built a nonprofit with the sole purpose of bringing potable water to the third world, but also believed that government was completely inept to handle such humanitarian tasks professionally and responsibly.
Standing before the judgment throne of God, would those individuals be condemned for failing to care "for the least of these?"
Anyone even peripherally familiar with the teachings of Jesus knows the answer to each of those questions is no.
The fact, then, that neither Donald Trump nor any of the members of the Republican-controlled Congress have done those things becomes immaterial. The point is established that support of taxpayer financed government largesse is not a prerequisite for obedience to Jesus's commands of personal charity.
While a case could be made that supporting such largesse actually borders on crossing biblical prohibitions against theft and plunder, I think it's wise not to commit the "reverend's" error by reading into the text what we may want to see.
A person may support big government welfare programs and also obey Christ's teachings. But a person may support such programs and not obey His teachings. Why? Why doesn't support of big government programs count as "caring for the least of these?" Because Christ wasn't giving a lecture on civil government nor telling His followers how they should engage with it.
Those that instruct otherwise aren't worshipping Christ when they do. They're committing idolatry and using the language of Christianity to do so.
P.S. Now check out our latest video 👇
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Not the Bee or any of its affiliates.
