Christianity seems to have made a resurgence in American political life in recent years, especially within the Republican Party. Large-scale religious displays were present, for example, at the most recent Republican National Convention, and Christian figures have had a strong voice in the second Trump administration. The increasing influence of Christianity has naturally sparked intense debate among Americans as to whether or not these developments are good or bad, and whether or not they cross the established line between church and state.
On Tuesday, a panel conducted by the Civil Discourse Initiative (“CDI”), a student group promoting open dialogue at UVA, discussed this very topic. There were three panelists: UVA students Camryn Beard, Emma Stallings, and Marty Dwyer. CDI member Xavier Days moderated the panel.
The panelists began by introducing themselves, stating their current denominational affiliation, and explaining their political views. Beard stated that she was raised in a Southern Baptist church but now attends both a non-denominational Protestant church and an Assemblies of God church, and that she identifies as a conservative Republican. Stallings stated that she was also raised as a Southern Baptist and continues to affiliate with the denomination, and that she was also a conservative Republican. Dwyer, by contrast, stated that they were raised Catholic and continue to attend Mass at UVA, and that they consider their political views to be generally left-leaning.
The first question to the panelists was about recent moves in states such as Texas and Oklahoma to pass laws that would place images of the Ten Commandments in public schools, and whether or not these moves were appropriate. Dwyer stated that, as someone who went to a private Catholic high school, there was definitely some value to a religious education, but that, as a nation inhabited by people with many different faiths, placing the Ten Commandments in public schools would only be appropriate if symbols of other faiths were represented as well. Beard argued, by contrast, that these bills were not seeking to explicitly bring religious teachings into classrooms, but were rather integrating a historic document that had a strong influence on the United States’ founding documents. Stallings concurred and argued further that since the dominant view found in the modern public school system is generally one of secularism, including the Ten Commandments in schools was a way to balance out those biases.
The second question dealt with a specific Bible verse: Mark 10:25, which goes “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the Kingdom of God,” and the extent to which it was acceptable to interpret the verse as an explicit injunction to support progressive or socialist economic measures. Beard argued that the verse was more about the love of money rather than the possession of money itself, and that possessing large quantities of money was not inherently wrong so long as it was accompanied by voluntary giving. Dwyer concurred that possessing money was not inherently bad, but that if a person were to base their political views on statements coming from the Bible, a redistributionist governmental policy would be perfectly in line with the verse. Stallings disagreed with this interpretation, arguing that when looking at the broader context of the verse, its meaning relates more to the worship of money as an idol than any sort of injunction to give up money.
As a follow-up, Days asked the panelists if there was a specific limit on how much money a Christian could have before it became immoral. Stallings stated that while it might be harder to maintain a moral life with wealth reaching into the billions of dollars, it was certainly possible; Dwyer pushed back, arguing that possessing a certain amount of money could eventually become excessive no matter what; Beard argued that what was most relevant was the means through which the money was acquired.
The discussion then moved to Donald Trump, specifically his personal conduct and his relationship with Christianity, such as his promotion of the “Trump Bible.” Beard stated that she believed perceptions of the “Trump Bible” were inaccurate, as that version of the Bible was not actually created for Trump specifically, and many other Bibles were also sold at high prices; as for Trump himself, while she believed his conduct was less than perfect, no one is perfect, and that he was the candidate who supported Christian values the most regardless. Dwyer stated that while they could not comment specifically on whether or not Trump was a good Christian or what his religious beliefs were, it was clear that he was a bad person who had exhibited a consistent pattern of disrespect towards others. Stallings acknowledged that Trump has been a controversial figure among Christians, but that figures on the other side of the spectrum, such as Jay Jones, had also made violent statements. Dwyer countered that one person making offensive statements did not necessarily mean Trump couldn’t be bad as well.
The last two questions from Days dealt with related issues: the recent decision by the Supreme Court not to consider overturning Obergefell v. Hodges, and the state of transgender rights in America. Beard and Stallings offered similar perspectives on both issues: in their view, the Bible clearly states that both same-sex marriage and being transgender are not permissible, and so should not receive explicit protections under the law. Dwyer, who is both gay and transgender themself, stated that in their own interpretation of Christianity, the core values of respect for others and loving one’s neighbor outweighed specific verses, especially considering there are many other specific injunctions in the Bible that Christians are not enjoined to follow. In the end, the panelists were unable to reconcile their views, but the conversation remained — in line with the goals of CDI — broadly respectful.
I enjoyed reading the different opinions and intelligent remarks made by these 3 individuals. I certainly agree with Stallings with her statements. Great conversations.