New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof

Nicholas Kristof is one of my favorite secular journalists because he generally gives fair, if sometimes misinformed, coverage to religious issues. In my opinion, his regular columns in the New York Times are the saving grace of that newspaper in terms of its portrayal of Christianity.

His May 15th essay is titled "Liberal Bible-Thumping" and basically urges liberals not to cede the religious stage to conservatives. I agree, but the example Kristof uses is not exactly encouraging. He cites The Sins of Scripture: Exposing the Bible's Texts of Hate to Reveal the God of Love, a book by a former Episcopal bishop that includes a number of blasphemous arguments that I won't bother critiquing. (Whenever I read about people theorizing about Jesus being married to Mary Magdelene using the scantest scriptural evidence, and then saying the Bible is unreliable, it makes me wonder where they get their ideas from? Sorry, couldn't resist.) But if this is the best examle of liberal scriptural argument, then I think it only proves Kristof's main point. This is what he writes:

Some of the bishop's ideas strike me as more provocative than persuasive, but at least he's engaged in the debate. When liberals take on conservative Christians, it tends to be with insults--by deriding them as jihadists and fleeing the field. That's a mistake. It's entirely possible to honor Christian conservatives for their first-rate humanitarian work treating the sick in Africa or fighting sex trafficking in Asia, and still do battle with them over issues like gay rights.

Liberals can and should confront Bible-thumping preachers on their own terms, for the scriptural emphasis on justice and compassion gives the left plenty of ammunition. After all, the Bible depicts Jesus as healing lepers, not slashing Medicaid.

I think there is a tremendously strong scriptural argument for Democratic political platforms that would help convince many Christians. After all, Jesus advocated taxes, right? (OK, I'm kidding about that one.) But Kristof does have a point about Medicaid and other societal security nets that are being undercut by conservative politicians. And what about environmental protection? Didn't God task Adam with watching over the Garden of Eden? And just because Moses is president of the National Rifle Association doesn't mean the Second Amendment is equal to the Second Commandment.

I think Christians should be more open-minded politically. Yes, the Republican party has done a better job catering to Christian interests, but that doesn't mean we need to commit ourselves to conservative ideology. After all, Jesus was definitely not a conservative in His day. I recently read a pastor's essay in the Charlotte Observer that advocates balance in Christian political views. He basically said Christians should not be blindly committed to either conservative or liberal platforms. Instead, they should follow God, which means standing firm in some things and allowing change in other areas. I'll leave you with this thought from that essay:

Being both liberal and conservative means being slower to speak, and taking more time to study God's word and to listen to God. If one assumes God is only liberal, or only conservative, one can know what position to take immediately on any and every issue. But being open to God doing a new thing, while holding onto God's continuity, is more subtle. It is also less certain, which means being less dogmatic.