The link to my fast is bound up in the fact that Winner, growing up an east coast Jew, was a Democrat. Although she sheds her old faith, she doesn't seem to shed her party. I find this intriguing for several reasons. Before, we get into this, I want to clarify the terms of my fast a bit more, because some political items will be thrown around in this post: for my fast, I do not mean that I am somehow bound from stating objective facts (i.e., the statement that George W. Bush is running for president for the Republicans, and that John F. Kerry is running for the Democrats is not a violation of my fast); on the other hand, I do mean that I am bound from exploring the pragmatic (as opposed to theological) pros and cons of issues, or from keeping up with the latest news on what each candidate is saying about the other (i.e., arguing that one candidate would be a better president than the other would be breaking my fast). That said, let's continue.
First, I think that I actually thought at one time that part of being a Democrat meant not believing in the authority of the Bible. Although she seems to suggest that Biblical inerrancy is not completely central to her identity (she defines herself as an evangelical, and contrasts evangelicals and fundamentalists thus: "Theologically, evangelicals and fundamentalists have a lot in common. Both groups affirm the authority of Scripture (though fundamentalists are more inclined toward a literal interpretation of Scripture, and a doctrine called biblical inerrancy--the idea that the Bible, in its original autographs, is perfect and immaculate and free from error--is more central to fundamentalist identity)" (105, my emphasis).), she certainly writes as though she believes in the inerrancy of the Bible. Thus, we'll give her this one for the benefit of the doubt. Still, the hesitancy of most Democrats to completely endorse the Bible has, in the past, been another justification for me to completely dismiss that party as un-Christian. Winner is a great counter-example to my former overly-simplified thinking.
Second, I have been wondering through this time of my fast (and in the past in what led up this fast) to what extent my political differences boil down to (a) cultural differences (i.e., the sort of things of which I should be accepting in grace and love), and (b) theological differences (i.e., the sort of thing on which I cannot budge). On this, Winner writes:
Sometimes I even feel equivocal about claiming the evangelical label. For, theologically, I am right in line with the evangelical mainstream, but what people want to know when they ask me whether or not I'm an evangelical is rarely theology. What they want to know is whether I vote for Pat Robertson, listen to Amy Grant, and believe the Earth is only five thousand years old. In fact, I've never voted for Pat Robertson, I prefer Mary Chapin Carpenter, and I think Darwin might have been onto something. (105)
She ends her thoughts on this by saying, "I look around [her church] at a motley crew of Christians, some of whom buy clothes at Wal-Mart and some of whom wear Vera Wang, and I know that these people are my people, polyester, Amy Grant, and all" (106).
Although I feel like I need to hear what she meant by her statement about Darwin, I still feel that she has written a great description of the body of Christ! Some of us are very culturally conservative (that would be I), and some of us are culturally liberal (that would be Winner), but we are all part of the body of Christ. In fact, she, being a Jew, has greater claim to being part of the body of Christ than I do; I'm merely a Gentile who has been grafted into the olive tree.
All in all, I think that this fast has given me some good insights into the blinders I had put on myself with such a dogmatic adherance to the philosophy of conservativism. I still have 30 days left, but I've rarely felt more free to think biblically in my life.
1 comment:
if you like winner's novel, you might also enjoy madeleine l'engle's "A Circle of Quiet."
Post a Comment