The Beatitudes and Politics, Part 1: Blessed Are the Poor in Spirit: for Theirs Is the Kingdom of Heaven

 

A couple of days ago, on the commute home, I was listening to an NPR news story that covered presidential candidate Bernie Sanders speaking at a Christian school.  The students were thankful for his visit, but there seemed to be an automatic assumption by the students that they could not be good Christians and vote for Sanders.  I thought that odd, because my Christian values push me towards candidates like Sanders (although on a few select issues the other side of the political spectrum appeals more).  It got me thinking, is there a way to accurately measure a candidate's political positions against the doctrine of Christ?; is it all a matter of interpretation?; or is it a little of both?

Now, before proceeding, I want to be upfront about two assumptions: 1) Separation of church and state and secularism are vital for healthy democracies; 2) There are self-evident, fixed eternal moral truths that are not relative which are exemplified by the teachings of Jesus.  These truths can be rationally tested by creating thought-scenarios and applying them in the same manner Buddhist monks experiment on reality by creating mental scenarios.  Buddha's teachings, many Native American teachings, and I assume many Hindu teachings, as well as the teaching of Mohammad are similar to those of Christ, so it is the perfect principles I'm advocating here, not religious unity.  I chose Christianity as my exemplar for two reasons: a) I'm a Christian; it's what I know best and believe; b) to be blunt, I believe many who profess Christian values in their politics are actually practicing outside their belief system without being aware of it. 

I will proceed simply by using the beatitudes as found in Mathew Chapter 5 of the King James Bible, unpacking their meaning or possible multiple-meanings and applying to current political issues to see how each party measures up on that particular beatitude.  I will also use other scriptures from the new Testament where Christ explains or extends the meaning of a particular beatitude. 

My preferred outcome would not be that one party win or lose, but that people realize they are perhaps not as partisan as they thought.  We have become so good at waving political banners, we've forgotten how to think before we vote.  But, we'll see.  Who knows, I may have to do some mental adjusting.  That would be a good thing.  A static mind is a dead mind.

Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

If poor here has its usual definition of "worse than expected or desired," than "poor in spirit," to my thinking can mean one of two things:  a) to be  literally suffering spiritually; or b) to have the humility to be teachable--to desire a spiritual tune-up.

I tend to think it means both.  Christ is providing comfort.  Your heart is aching, but fear not, I am here.  If that is the case, the reward for that suffering is automatic.  "Theirs is the kingdom of heaven."  No application needed.  Instant help and mercy for the broken-hearted.

The second meaning requires work to obtain "the kingdom of heaven."  Poverty here is not a negative condition but a desirable goal.  It is the humility necessary to remain teachable, and not all will obtain it because their egos will get in the way.

It seems clear to  me through other passages that Christ means both, particularly in passages dealing with judgment:

3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,

 4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.

 5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?

 6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.

 7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

 8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.

 9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.

 10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?

 11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

 12 ¶Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.  (John 8:3-12)

Here he applies both meanings of the beatitude.  The woman is violated in multiple ways: 1) A sense of privacy has clearly been broken; 2) a double-standard (sexism) is in place as it takes two to commit adultery, but only she is brought before Jesus; 3) her sins, unlike those of the scribes and Pharisees have been publically exposed.  As a result, she is anguished.  He feels her pain and instantly absolves her sins:  Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

The scribes and Pharisees, on the other hand, fail to meet the other definition of "poor in spirit."  Until he rebukes them, they lack the humility to choose the right.  They take a bad situation and make it worse through a lack of empathy. 

The question is, why does Christ rebuke the scribes and Pharisees and not the woman?  She too has sinned; yet he gives her a blank check (provided she "sin no more".)

I think the answer to that is clear.  The Pharisees were members of a movement towards religious puritanism.  They believed the Torah was the final word of God, adequate for all purposes and all times.  In other words, they were the fundamentalist-leaning clergy of their time.  The scribes were the educated writers, copiers and bookmen, many of whom were members of the highest legal administration in the state.  In other words, the Pharisees and scribes were the power-holders of their time; the woman, we may assume, had no economic or political clout.  It's not so much that the woman is innocent, but that she is disadvantaged.  The scribes already have their reward; he is assuring her that if she changes, she will have "the Kingdom of Heaven."  That is where justice comes in.

It is not hard to apply the lessons of this beatitude to the political issues of our time.  At first I was going to analyze specific issues and rate each of the party's performance on that issue based on the outcome.  But, I think I'll avoid that.   Instead, I want to formulate for myself the questions I should ask when voting on either issues or candidates.

1.  Does this proposition or candidate I'm considering allow people a reasonable path to redemption?  In other words, does it assert the right of everyone to a fresh start or a new beginning?
2.  Does this proposition or candidate I'm considering hold those in power accountable for their elevated social stature?

These questions are not partisan.  They are not based on interpretations of scripture.  They are literally derived from the first beatitude, "Blessed Are the Poor in Spirit: Theirs Is the Kingdom of Heaven" found in Mathew Chapter 5 and the account of woman taken in adultery found in John Chapter 8.