I rarely write about politics, but this “Riff” is a bit of an intersection between evangelicalism and the left-leaning media.
Pam Chamberlain’s piece on young Evangelicals shifting leftward first appeared in the proudly left journal, The Public Eye. It’s reproduced here on AlterNet.
The first thing I want to say is that, until recently, I’ve purposely not listened to the left-leaning internet commenting community because it seems to be dominated by extreme voices. The comments to this piece will verify that. The levels of ignorance, vitriol and vengeance fantasies are amazing.
But at the same time, I’ve also avoided the extreme political right. I find both to be unproductive, ignorant and unrelated to my own political views.
Pam Chamberlain has discovered that some evangelicals don’t fit the caricature she’s always believed. She calls it change, and some of what she sees is change, and I predict it will continue and intensify. But guess what lefty folk? The diversity of evangelical political beliefs has always been there.
As a conservative, I believe in the rule of law, the constitution, the legitimacy of elections and a judiciary that doesn’t attempt to run the country. As a libertarian-leaning conservative, I believe in limited government, freedom and individual rights. As a Christian, I’m convinced of the moral values rooted in the character and law of God. I do not expect government to echo these, but I also believe God will judge the world by his standards, not ours, no matter how passionately we feel about them.
I cannot compromise the essentials of my worldview and still have a Christ-centered faith. Issues like gay marriage go back to essential components of the Biblical narrative. These are not matters where Christians can simply “decide to be tolerant.” Toleration is a value that is expressed in secular government, but not in the Kingdom of God. These aren’t issues where we can say “Well the Bible accepted slavery, so I can accept gay marriage.” The way those two issues are viewed in scripture is radically different. We can’t use the Bible as a wax nose, and many of us are aware of the dangers and costs of doing exactly that.
God’s truth is not in flux from culture to culture. What may appear to be changing standards by Christians- for instance, on slavery- is nothing more than an arrival at an honest hearing of what the Bible and God have always said. What we’re after are first principles, not possible constructions, deconstructions and extrapolations.
The comments here at IM this week were populated with liberals saying that I and other evangelicals need to adopt the views of “Bishop” John Shelby Spong and Bart Ehrman. Do you have any idea what you are saying? These are men who are the sworn enemies of what we believe. It is like telling a gay person that they must adopt the views of Fred Phelps and the “God Hates Fags” crowd. If we are going to talk to each other, we can’t assume that the other person has as an option the complete rejection of his/her faith.
There are any number of issues where I, as a conservative-libertarian Christian, am at variance with the common view of how evangelicals view issues. For example, I favor civil unions, but marriage is a concept defined for me by scripture, not culture. I am for decriminalization of marijuana and I am a major supporter of public schools. While I am pro-life, I’m sure I’m at variance with any number of other pro-life Christians regarding what specific laws should reflect that position. I am much closer to the left than the right on many issues involving science, in both research and education.
I vehemently reject ideas like “America is a Christian country” or “God approves of all American military action.” I in no way want a Christian dominance or place of privilege in ANY aspect of the public square. At the same time, I absolutely oppose government interference in the practice of religion and I believe that religion should be recognized in the public square, so “Merry Christmas” to all of you working for the government.
I prefer that government “help” be the removal of government interference, the lightening of tax burdens, deregulation and the providing of rewards and incentives for personal and community initiatives. I’m skeptical of most- not all- faith based programs. I’m against tax assistance for private schools (and I work for one.) I support limited welfare in most cases and felt Clinton’s “Welfare to Work” approach was the right way to go.
I recognize, among a minority of my Christian conservative friends, more than a little bigotry and racism toward the President. I deplore it and want to in no way be associated with it. I did not vote for Mr. Obama, and I find him, so far, to be inept a la Jimmy Carter, but I would have gladly voted for Mr. Romney, a non-Christian in my view, or Mr. Paul, a man unwelcome to even speak in the GOP convention after energizing millions of conservative voters. I am not a one-issue voter, and Sarah Palin will likely never get my vote.
So why do I say all of this? Because I have known for a long, long time that evangelicals are a diverse bunch. That diversity is shifting generationally, but it has always been there. We all weren’t Ted Haggard or Jerry Falwell or Billy Graham, and we always knew that was the case, if YOU knew where to look.
The media, both mainstream and internet, has misportrayed evangelicals for decades. They have decided to make Dobson and Robertson our spokespersons, when millions of evangelicals want nothing to do with either of them. Yes, millions of evangelicals are part of the far-right culture war and the extreme rhetoric that goes along with it, but millions of evangelicals are moderate and diverse in all kinds of ways.
The problems of both the extreme left and extreme right are their tactics of exaggeration and hyperbole in order to stir up support and gain attention. Everyone must be demonized. Everyone must follow the script that turns the other side into Nazis. It’s like a combination of American politics and WWE wrestling.
At the height of the civil rights movement, Martin Luther King, Jr. particularly and clearly rejected these tactics. He taught that opponents must be the objects of a quest for their transformation, and that by love, not hate or violence of any kind. Opponents must be respected. If possible, actively served and loved. Always prayed for. If their response is cruelty and hatred, we must be willing to suffer at their hands. This is a hard, but Jesus-shaped prescription, for dealing with our opponents.
I am prepared to appreciate those aspects of a person that I deeply disagree with, if their views are an expression of integrity. The most important aspect of any competition is the handshake before the game, and the civil acceptance of the results of each play.
We have, instead, adopted the methods and manners of professional wrestlers and fringe crackpots in discussing our diverse views. If we can’t find the civility, intelligence and integrity to move past the rhetoric of hate to a true respect for and consideration of other human beings and citizens, does our republic even deserve to continue?
The Internet Monk Archives 
At this point in American history, christian leaders like Pat Robertson, James Dobson and all pastors need to get out of politics and go back to preaching the gospel of Christ. Unfortunately the damage these men have caused to the cause of Christ is so great it will take a new generation of leaders to erase. Indeed, Christ avoided politics, instead we see him addressing the real need of man which is transformation of the soul and spirit. We forget that Christ lived at a time when the Jews and indeed the known world was under Roman oppression. People were being crucified daily, new borns were dashed to their deaths and yes there were homosexuals all over the place. He chose not to speak out against these things but rather to deal with eternal issues. If he had chosen to go after the Romans, we would not have the gospel today. It would have been obscured by the more bellicose message of politics. When questioned by Pontius Pilate, he told him his kingdom was not of this world! I wish our pastors and leaders could remember that a little more often. Maybe we followers of Christ can learn from this humble son of a carpenter who remains a star over 2000 years later.
Churches like the Seventh day Adventist church are to be commended for their wisdom. They are every bit as evangelical as the others but have wisely chosen to keep the political views of their leaders out of the public arena.
I hope that the election of Barack Obama a black man of direct African descent finally shocks christian leaders in this country into realising that just as God chose Cyrus, a man who did not even know him, to rebiuld his temple and Jerusalem, he can allow whoever he wants to rule this nation.
We meanwhile need to be about the master’s business no matter who is in the white house.Our duty is to convince others by reason and persuasion with all respect about the goodness of Christ and not to force our beliefs down other people throats.
LikeLike
Michael, you are always measured and thoughtful, yet I think abortion is the oneplace where we would disagree. The problem, of course, is how to stand for righteousness and against abortion without appearing to buy the rest of the far-right agenda. Because I oppose abortion — and consider it murder in almost every circumstance — does not mean I am a young-earth creationist, a racist, a warmonger, or a Glenn Beck-style “crush the poor” capitalist. I too believe marijuana should be decriminalized, not because there’s anything good about pot, but simply because the police have better things to do, and pot users often are not “criminals” in any other sense.
But I do believe that “nuanced” views on abortion are simply compromises, and that the political right’s willingness to compromise undermines the credibility — and the internal logic — of the pro-life position. I have always opposed “parental consent” — that you can muder someone provided you have a note from mommy — and “informed consent” — that you can kill someone provided you’ve seen an ultrasound picture. I think that’s nonsense. Equally insane is the Obama position, that we fight abortion by eliminating “root causes” — it’s like saying we don’t criminalize wife-beating, we merely work to “eliminate the root causes” of wife-beating.
Frankly, if anyone knew how to handle this abortion thing, it would have been dealt with long ago. I’ve withdrawn from being an activist on the issue, but we simply cannot compromise the dignity and worth of those created in God’s image, even in their embryonic stages. Of course we must work to create a culture that nourishes life and values children…and pray…
LikeLike
Joe,
I rarely talk politics, being a yellow dog Republican Catholic. 😉 .
One way to consider, without it being a cheap shot, is that President Obama is a good man, but not effective as being President. That’s the way I think about former President Carter.
LikeLike
I guess I’m a conservative libertarian, if I’m anything; I’ve gotten pretty apolitical, except for specific local issues and candidates.
Sorry, I guess I differ from most of you. I don’t think the Bible is situational. It is what it is, and if you decide to ignore pieces you don’t like or don’t think apply, then I guess you will. I’m not going to.
And I don’t eat shrimp either, FWIW.
LikeLike
If you really want to raise the level of discourse between Christians on the left and the right, you might want to refrain from cheap shots such as “Obama is the next Jimmy Carter.” I guess glib proclamations is the name of the game here, we’ve got “inept”, “non-Christian” from some poster who apparently has the ability to see directly into the souls of others…anyone else want to toss in a few more? Or shall we get back to meat of the issue and leave the BS at the curbside?
LikeLike
Stumbled into this article after reading the one in Slate. I’m a liberal who disagrees with a good handful of your assertions here but wanted to express, like others on this wall, my appreciation of your refreshing, open-minded rheotoric.
LikeLike
Hi Michael,
You write an interesting article, and I appreciate your perspective, but I have to say, I do think there *is* a change going on among younger Christians traditionally defined as evangelicals, and as a group they are becoming more socially liberal.
You are correct — both voices have been there all along, for those who know where to look. But following the victories of the Religious Left in the 1960s, the Religious Right rose to ascendancy in the 1970s by politics about “values” (usually morality) rather than about social justice, which in a religious context often was dismissed in evangelical circles as a “social gospel,” and somehow less sacred or True than the spiritual gospel being pushed instead. The Religious Left didn’t disappear, but it did fade, and as is often the case, the crowd of moderates gradually shifted toward the voices on the Right that were dominating.
It’s not entirely fair to say that “the media” anointed the leaders and speakers for evangelicals. Most were chosen by evangelicals who listened to their programs, distributed their material, and made the phone calls that they were asked to. It’s not reasonable to fault the media for noting who the political power-brokers were in Christian circles; the fault lies with us for ever elevating them to that level.
I am curious to see how the leftward shift plays itself out in terms of evangelicalism. It’s been made clear to me by a good number of evangelicals that the tent isn’t big enough for me because of my political viewpoints — even though my religious views fall squarely within orthodoxy. That sort of political bellicosity, combined with an eagerness to define evangelicalism along narrower and narrower doctrinal lines, led me several years ago to ditch the evangelical label. I’m happy to be known as “post-evangelical” or, more simply, “not evangelical.”
From what I’ve read, my experience is hardly unique. Some people, like Gary Olson, are trying to reclaim the evangelical label for the inclusivity it once represented, but from what I can tell, that hasn’t been happening. If the strident voices on the Right politically continue to push away those who don’t toe the party line, how long will this new generation of politically liberal Christians be willing to identify themselves with a movement that’s become known for not wanting them?
LikeLike
I apologize Drew G. the contact info is not on that site.
Try t e x g u y @ t e x g u y . net
Spread out to discourage spammers. (THE DEVIL’s SPAWN).
LikeLike
BTW
This is an example of closed-mindedness.
If the fetus is not human then kill the annoying insect.
If it is human protect it with the full force of you life and the law.
I only see a middle ground if the birth is going to cause physical death to the mother in which case it is justifiable homicide.
Don’t bring up the death penalty. They are only marginally related in that both result in death.
Here’s a deal.
I will wholeheartedly support abolition of the death penalty if the pro-choice people will give the same benefit of the doubt to fetuses.
After all, the argument are:
1.Don’t make mistakes in who dies.
2. They might become humans or humans again in the case of murderers.
LikeLike
on 16 Mar 2009 at 8:15 pm Joseph
“I don’t know if you’d call this pro-choice, ….
Governmental laws and regulations do not provide all the guidance required by the informed Christian conscience. Therefore, a decision concerning abortion should be made only after thoughtful and prayerful consideration by the parties involved, with medical, pastoral, and other appropriate counsel.”
It’s either a human or it’s not a human.
Anything else is strainig for gnats.
Methodists, take a stand.
LikeLike
I don’t know if you’d call this pro-choice, but here is an excerpt from the United Methodist Social Principles
Home > Our Faith > Church and Society > Social Principles> Abortion
Abortion
The beginning of life and the ending of life are the God-given boundaries of human existence. While individuals have always had some degree of control over when they would die, they now have the awesome power to determine when and even whether new individuals will be born.
Our belief in the sanctity of unborn human life makes us reluctant to approve abortion. But we are equally bound to respect the sacredness of the life and well-being of the mother, for whom devastating damage may result from an unacceptable pregnancy. In continuity with past Christian teaching, we recognize tragic conflicts of life with life that may justify abortion, and in such cases we support the legal option of abortion under proper medical procedures. We cannot affirm abortion as an acceptable means of birth control, and we unconditionally reject it as a means of gender selection.
We oppose the use of late-term abortion known as dilation and extraction (partial-birth abortion) and call for the end of this practice except when the physical life of the mother is in danger and no other medical procedure is available, or in the case of severe fetal anomalies incompatible with life. We call all Christians to a searching and prayerful inquiry into the sorts of conditions that may warrant abortion. We commit our Church to continue to provide nurturing ministries to those who terminate a pregnancy, to those in the midst of a crisis pregnancy, and to those who give birth. We particularly encourage the Church, the government, and social service agencies to support and facilitate the option of adoption. (See ¶ 161.K.)
Governmental laws and regulations do not provide all the guidance required by the informed Christian conscience. Therefore, a decision concerning abortion should be made only after thoughtful and prayerful consideration by the parties involved, with medical, pastoral, and other appropriate counsel.
From The Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church – 2004. Copyright 2004 by The United Methodist Publishing House. Used by permission.
LikeLike
Drew G. go to my website and I will help you get in touch with a wonderful Orthodox priest who voted for President Obama in spite of disagreeing about abortion.
I would give you my e-mail but unfortunately that is is an open invitation to insanity on the net these days.
There is a path.
I don’t agree with it but there is a thoughtful reasoned path.
LikeLike
I totally agree… what is interesting is that most Christians who are conservative believe in a limited government that cannot tell them how to spend their money; however, when it comes to moral issues that conservatives would rather push on, they would absolutely love for a big government to decide what is right vs. wrong so long as it agrees with their own views.
Conservative Evangelicals are really quite fundamentalist when you get down to the roots of their belief systems. A true conservative evangelical, such as yourself, would more clearly define the separation of church and state, and furthermore, religion and law.
Overall, great article!
LikeLike
There are so many political issues out there where I can see both sides. I might agree with one or the other but I “get” where they are coming from and generally see how and why they got there as a Christian.
Like Christians voting for big government poverty programs, I “get” how they make that vote. I disagree, but I see a path for a Christian to get there.
Most political issues are like that, I can see both sides and see how a Christian might go either way.
Abortion for me is one of the very few non starters. I do not “get” and never have, how a Christian comes to the place where they can vote for a Pro-Choice candidate.
So, you Pro-Choice Christians out there. Throw me a bone, some scripture, the thought process, something.
I am not being snide or mean, I genuinely want to see how one arrives at the “I’m a Pro-choice Christian” doorstep.
It is an honest question.
LikeLike
To the guy I just deleted: Calling Republicans fascists isn’t going to work on here.
LikeLike
I think this post has demonstrated:
1. We all have much in common in terms of what we want for one another and our fellow citizens.
2. We should not let anyone define us as individuals or groups except ourselves this includes all media.
3. It is possible to have civil discourse with those we disagree with.
4. I am right and everyone else is a degree of wrong. Did I say that out loud?
LikeLike
Mr. Tibbets,
It may indeed be ” closemindedness”.
However, I think that ” closemindedness” has become a synonym for being sure of one’s convictions.
In that case all of us, even you, are guilty of ” closemindedness”.
I have a closed mind on the subject of is the earth flat. It is not. I am positive.
Some of these other issues maybe not so much.
I personally couldn’t care less if civil unions are formed between consenting adults.
However,be positive about something is not the same thing as having a closed mind.
I concede that I could be wrong about the shape of the earth. Heck, they lied about the tooth fairy.
But like my faith and my convictions I am certain beyond a reasonable doubt.
LikeLike
This is a beautiful piece of writing. If it’s ok with you, I’m going to direct my friends (mostly liberal) to read this. It contains a lot that we, as a common republic, need to hear.
LikeLike
I have read this blog for awhile because the discussion about denominations interests me a great deal. Christ is the center of my life. I am very clear on that point. But I am not sure what to do about church or really what my expectations should be. I realize this isn’t really related to your post, but perhaps it is worth thinking about when discussing denominations and the issue of evangelism, which I will get to in a moment.
I was raised Southern Baptist. My mother taught Sunday school for 50+ years and so we were at the church whenever the doors were open. Unfortunately, this meant that I witnessed quite a bit of hypocrisy and bigotry as a child. Although we sang ‘Jesus Loves The Little Children’ in Sunday School, our deacons were quite vocal in their resistance to integration. Yes, we were told that Jesus loved us, but the sermons seemed to be much more about fear.
By around age twelve I began to have serious doubts about church teachings. By the time I graduated high school I was not at all shy about my agnosticism.
My husband grew up Catholic, went to Catholic schools and by the time we met he was an unapologetic atheist. We married, raised a family and religion was simply not a part of our lives. Oddly enough my Southern Baptist mother and his Catholic mother adore each another. They did have something in common. They never stopped praying for us.
Nearly three years ago God intervened in my life. That is the only way I know to explain it. I began to feel a longing for God that grew so strong that I became positively miserable until I was on my knees in tears.
Of course my mother wanted me to return to the Baptist church. My mother-in-law wanted me to explore Catholicism. She told me that as a Catholic mother it was her duty to see her son back in the church before she died. I don’t believe this is likely. My husband has no interest in attending any church, but I truly believe that God knows his heart and understands the situation better than either his mother or me. He has been respectful of my return to Christ. Although he still says he is an atheist, his words and actions are often more ‘Christian’ than what I see in some who call themselves Christian.
Anyway, when God intervened in my life, I knew I should join a church and worship with others. But which church? I prayed a lot. I asked people I knew. I read books and visited numerous websites.
I live in a fairly small community so my options were limited. I didn’t feel comfortable returning to the Baptist church – the only kind of Baptist church in my community is Southern Baptist. On the advice of a friend I began attending a United Methodist church. I like many things about the church, but find it rather cool toward newcomers. This is most definitely not an evangelical church. Indeed, if you haven’t been a member for 30 years they scarcely acknowledge you exist. They don’t want visitors to feel uncomfortable so draw as little attention to them as possible. At least that is how it seems to me.
As much as I learned to dislike the Southern Baptist church, I cannot help but make comparisons. Not once has anyone from my new church visited me at my home. This seems very peculiar to one raised in a Southern Baptist Church.
On the other hand, I am comfortable enough with the teachings of this church. If only I still didn’t feel like a visitor two years after joining.
Yes, I have attempted to participate and have volunteered quite a bit. But church activities leave me feeling all the more like I don’t belong.
We do not select our biological families. And I suspect that if we separated from out family for 30+ years and then shown descriptions of all the families we might choose to join, we might not select our own, while at the same time we might feel a visitor in any other. I think this is where I’m at. I pray about this a lot, and increasingly find myself seeking excuses not to attend this church. But I don’t know what else to do.
My husband does not attend church with me, so I go alone. I deliberately seek out an elderly person sitting alone and join her. This is shockingly easy to do. I sense that a lot of people feel like visitors at this church, but would probably not be as willing to speak up as me.
I do not doubt the many problems in evangelical churches, but I think it is possible to go too far in the other direction. I think you could walk into any church of any denomination on any given Sunday and find plenty of people who have made the effort to show up, who are starving for a hug or a warm word or any kind of relationship with other Christians.
One thing I really like about my pastor is that he never mentions politics. If I were interested in a discussion of politics I would stay home and watch the Sunday morning talk shows. The reason I go to church is that Christ in central in my life and I think it is good to worship together. I know this sounds simplistic but I am at the point where I am deliberately trying to reduces these feelings down to their simplest form in the hope that I can figure out what to do. But while this is my reason for attending church and denomination does not seem that important right now, I would wish for one where I could feel more a part of a family.
I certainly feel I’m the Prodigal Daughter who lavishly wasted 30 years as an agnostic. I can never get back the opportunity to raise my children to know Christ, as I have come to know Christ. This is the most painful part of my experience.
God welcomed me back as joyously as the father in the parable. But I am finding the church to be more like the brother.
LikeLike
Sue. Great post. It’s amazing how quickly we can berate others and begin to feel superior. I often find myself doing the same. But, since accepting Christ twenty years ago, that has been tempered by the tendency of His Word to force one to look for the beam first. Cosequently, I have a strong tendency to condem myself, before condeming others. Funny how putting the light of God’s Word on yourself can make you despise what you see.
Monk. This is my first time seeing your blog. Great job.
Drew. I agree with you about public schools in general. My former Son-in_Law graduated from high school in Florida and can’t read as well as I could in third grade. He now resents the fact that they allowed him to graduate. Tragically, I also agree with your statements about the Black family. As a black man, I am almost always persona non grata with other blacks, since my views are very, very conservative. But, I live a very blessed, middle class life style from simply working hard and getting more education, when necessary, throughout my life. I don’t subscribe to the entitlement mentality at all, since I have always found that dedication and hard work pays off in America. Of course, I’m a real old-timer, born before the baby boomer generation, so my views are probably qutie outmoded to most.
LikeLike
*Welfare and poverty programs have been aimed at the African American population for decades…*
Okay, let’s forget for a moment that “welfare” is gone, and has been gone since June of 1996 with the passage of the Individual Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act, which turned welfare from an entitlement into a block grant to states to administer as they saw fit and which imposed A.) a requirement that recipients be looking for work (much as with unemployment compensation) and B.) imposed lifetime eligibility limits and C.) removed many of the infamous welfare rules that had penalized women with children from living with and receiving income from their husbands/boyfriends.
Instead let’s just aim at the “aimed at African American” canard. The original social welfare programs of the Depression era–way before Aid to Families With Dependent Children (AFDC) of Johnson’s Great Society–were a fairly minor part of the New Deal which were rather cynically co-opted by the southern segregationist wing of the Democratic party (yes, my party).
These FDR-via-Jim-Crow programs were not particularly aimed at urban blacks but rather at both black and white rural sharecropper populations. These programs were tiny allowances administered mostly to keep these populations from starving do death during every season other than harvest time.
Sorry if this is boring or dry: Facts usually are when compared to ideology, propaganda or paranoia.
*I think I will see a great lose of freedom and prosperity in America in my life time.*
I don’t. If we can at last break the link between employment and health care, then we will be MORE prosperous and MORE free. It costs a business something like $8,000 a year to provide good-quality family coverage to one employee these days. It costs an individual family buying an off-the-shelf individual health plan significantly more than that. If “the free market” can provide affordable, good quality health care then why, after 70-some years of health insurance in America, has it not yet done so?
We don’t have to individually pay when the police protect us from criminals or the fire dept from fires or the military from enemies or FEMA from disasters. We’ve accepted that “safety” and “security” in these cases are public goods to which we should all contribute. For the government to be involved with them is a legitimate writ under it’s founding principle: To protect the people. So, why do we have to individually pay for doctors and hospitals to protect us from sickness, arguably much more common than crime, fire, disaster and war?
LikeLike
*No, that is the mainstream media presentation that dominates, and crowds out all others…sure the internet revolution is going to shake this all upside down when all is said and done, but for the past 30 years, the national stage and most public recognizable face of Christianity media display has been the “religious rightâ€â€¦*
Ugh. If I had a nickel for every time I’ve heard “the mainstream media” used as the crux of someone’s argument–and it is completely equal-opportunity: left and right both seem exactly as enamored of this trope–then I would have, well, many, many nickels.
Criticism of “the media” is what people do when they want to call one or another group of other people idiots but need a “cutout” in order to avoid the appearance of doing so. It’s “dog whistle” politics by another name: I.e. the ultra-right can thus communicate among itself that everyone who voted for Obama was a credulous fool without having to say so, per se, by claiming it was “the media” that “duped” America.
Couple of things:
1.) Everyone is probably smarter than everyone else seems to think (or, if you believe in original sin and the fallen nature of man, you can believe that everyone is *dumber* than *they themselves* think; either way it amounts to the same thing). So rumors of the media broadly and successfully “fooling” anyone have been greatly exaggerated.
2.) On a related note, “Madison Avenue” probably isn’t the world-conquering genius force everyone thinks it is. Time was, measurements of advertising’s success involved many fuzzy measures; focus (foci?) groups, surveys with consumers, surveys with store managers.
But with internet banner ads, all of that is changed. Now we can measure hard-and-fast the effect of advertising: The effect? None. Ads don’t work. On anyone. No one clicks anything. No one buys anything they do click on.
3.) The most important thing to remember about “mainstream media” is they are going out of business hand over fist. Newspapers, cable news, broadcast news, radio news, the wire services, weekly newsmagazines, all of it: Can’t turn a profit to save their grandmas. Some of this has to do with the impossible economics of corporate ownership (see Slacktivist for this discussion). But much of it is just that: Old news is worthless and, increasingly, so is current news.
LikeLike
“on 16 Mar 2009 at 4:45 am Colin
Interestingly enough, MLK was, as a Christian, on the anti-capitalist left, especially towards the end of his life.”
Which speaks exactly to the original intent, as I understand it, of this post that Christianity is a big tent.
I am in many ways extreme right.
I am in many ways extreme libertarian or even left.
Both sets of friends think I am an idiot.
Point is even I as one individual Christian cannot be put into a box.
How can millions be labeled one way or another?
Bono and Sean Hannity both give every indication of being Christians.
LikeLike
Well, the guys on your side that we can judge you by are the ones who you choose to represent you. If you were electing people who were tolerant, kind and loving then you might have a point, but those sorts of evangelicals do not get the votes (either in elections or in terms of the votes of the TV viewing audiences). This is very much like one of those false apologies, where rather than apologising what someone says or does, they are sorry that the other person took it wrongly.
As for education, private schools do better for a very simple reason. They are able to select their pupils. Every single school would do brilliantly if they could just get rid of pupils that are too much effort. Of course, the best thing to do would be to look at school systems that work and maybe copy them. So, which country has a succesful education system and no public education?
LikeLike
Fr Ernesto: “I am tired of the all or nothing approach of both extremes.”
I’ve been instructed by my therapist to memorize a list of cognitive distortions, one of which is “all or nothing” thinking. Since then, I’ve been this crop up everywhere, in Christian thought as well as in secular thought.
I like moderation, the middle way, being centered. Is Christianity for or against such thinking? I honestly am not sure.
LikeLike
I think the main problem is that when many Americans (especially younger Americans) look at the church, all they see is partisan politics, Democrats in mainline protestantism and Republicans in almost all forms of evangelicalism.
As the church, we need to step back from partisan politics lest it become a stumbling block to those whom Christ is seeking through us. Of course we should vote, run for office, and express our opinion as all citizens should, but we should refrain from using the language of God and the church to sanctify our own political tribe and its opinions.
I plead guilty and confess to having brought my political conservatism into the church, where it does not belong.
I think the tone of the Monk on these issues is right on.
LikeLike
Of all the things that divide Evangelicals and the left, issues such as prayer in school, posting the ten commandments in public, and teaching evolution in school are minor sideshows. As IM correctly points out, Evangelicals are a diverse group. I’m an Evangelical with conservative libertarian views and I don’t support prayer in public schools, posting the ten commandments in public buildings such as courthouses or banning the teaching of evolution in schools. But in the grand scheme of things, these are minor issues and some have already faded in importance.
The real source of bitter, emotional disagreement between Evangelicals and the left are those that come out of the sexual revolution such as abortion, gay rights, sex in the media, and the acceptance of things such as pre-marital sex, pre-marital cohabitation, and single motherhood as valid lifestyle choices. What really bothers me about the left in all this is the failure of so many on the left to realize just how radically they have changed their views in such a short time. For example, your average liberal in 1965 would most likely not favored the left’s current position on abortion. They would have almost certainly viewed homosexual behavior as abnormal and immoral and wouldn’t have dreamed of supporting gay marriage. Your average liberal in 1990 would have changed some of their views, but most likely wouldn’t favor gay marriage.
Yet if one opposes abortion and gay marriage today, many on the left won’t hesitate to call you a “theocrat†who is attempting “to force your religion†on the rest of society. By this logic, the average liberal, including non-religious ones, in 1965 and 1990 (years that Baby Boomers and GenXers lived through) were “theocrats.†We also lived in a theocracy in 1965 and 1990. Clearly this charge is absurd and lacks historical perspective. It also shows that Evangelicals aren’t the only ones that live in a bubble. Many liberals do as well.
Liberals would do well to abandon their stereotypes of Evangelicals and recognize that first and foremost it is they who have changed their views of sexual ethics. Evangelicals aren’t attempting to force their views on others so much as fighting a rear guard action and reacting negatively to what they perceive as the left constantly advocating change from the worse. If liberals truly believe the changes in their views of sexual ethics are for the better, they should endeavor to explain why instead of calling Evangelicals absurd names. And they should have more patience. They have changed their minds in a relatively short time after all.
Evangelicals on the other hand need to realize that our society no longer shares a general view of sexual ethics. In the past we didn’t fight with the left on these issues (and many Evangelicals weren’t even involved in politics) because fundamentally we didn’t disagree with them. Our society, both the religious and non-religious, both the left and the right, shared a lot of common ground when it came to sexual ethics. Times, however, have changed greatly. We need to realize that since our society has no common sexual ethics there is a limit to what we can achieve through the political process and legislation. And of course, we have a lot of mess from the sexual revolution (ex: rampant divorce and remarriage) that we need to clean up in our own camp.
bwl
LikeLike
Interestingly enough, MLK was, as a Christian, on the anti-capitalist left, especially towards the end of his life. My guess is that if he were alive today he would be quite unpopular, but he has become one of those figures like Dietrich Bonhoeffer who leaves a legacy that all can somehow relate to (and perhaps neuter for whatever purpose they have in mind).
LikeLike
Fr. Ernesto
I thought I might slip one by you.
LikeLike
Maybe there’s diversity in the ranks of evangelicals, but I haven’t seen it. I’m not one, though, so I’m outside looking in. Seems to me when it’s boiled down to pulling the voting lever, they’re more or less Republican.
Which is OK. The rub for me is when that political theory seems to override Christianity.
Universal health care is a great example. Our system is 38th in the world in terms of what we get vs. what we pay. If my family’s insurance is $1500 a month, $1000 goes to health care and $500 goes to the insurance company to pay for people to find ways to deny me coverage.
It makes a world of economic sense to move to a more efficient and effective model, which would have a minor Christian side effect of allowing the poor to have health care.
But the political position that government is the problem, not the solution, stands in the way of this change.
The invisible hand we need to have faith in is the hand of God. The one Adam Smith theorized doesn’t always produce the best results for our society or Christ.
LikeLike
Zla’od
You seem to have dropped a fragment there? I don’t know what exactly you are referring to. But I can’t resist responding.
Christianity will be around until the end of humanity – you can bet on that. We’ve been here for 2000 years, and have outlasted anything else in history.
A little review of fall of past great civilizations will give you a pretty good idea of what sort of things are going to meet with an “early demise.”
LikeLike
Hey IMONK
That piece Rocks – I think you hit it dead center. I usually love to find something to nit-pick about, but not today.
God Bless
GNW_Paul
LikeLike
I find myself at the rare and peculiar crossroads of liberal politics and evangelical faith. This discussion highlights for me why I feel like an outcast in both. On the one hand, so many liberals have an open hostility to things they do not understand about evangelicals – there were times when I actually felt the urge to defend Sarah Palin and Bobby Jindal (yes, I know he’s Catholic, but he was subject to similar attack) of all people – two candidates I would never vote for under any circumstances ever – because of the ways their faith was misunderstood and demeaned by liberals who tend to show tolerance to most other groups.
On the other hand, many conservative evangelicals I have had the misfortune of crossing paths with do not even feign tolerance. Theirs is a religion of us-versus-them, subtle or not-so-subtle racism – which I clearly felt as Obama campaigned for President, an extreme willingness to fall in with the most extreme of conspiracy theories, and an idolatry of Republican politics so complete that they will de-church me for disagreeing with a specific course of political action (abortion comes to mind here, where I am not “pro-life” enough for not pulling the level marked “R”).
If not for Christ’s grace I am quite sure I would have given up on the faith entirely. As it is, I suspect it is only evangelicalism that I will give up on.
LikeLike
I was in the supermarket yesterday and thinking how bizarre it was that we all were expecting our own clear path through the supermarket and getting angry at each other when we got in the way of each other. And when you stand back three paces from that and see how everybody is juding everyone else except themselves, and yet from the outside everyone including yourself is acting exactly the same … well, I guess in the end you have to sort of laugh about it because it is quite incongruous.
And Christianity is worse than anywhere else I come across. We flame our own like nobody else does. I do it too. That’s why I’m so glad to come reading here IM. It always reminds me of the beam in my own eye. I got bible slapped online the other day by an extreme righter. I find it difficult to be enamoured of the right when more people by far of that persuasion have flamed and belittled me for my views. And yet I do the same. Seems the only way we can keep our entitlements to treat each other in the crap way we do, with the world looking on at the same old same old, is when we conveniently forget that what we criticise in others is exactly what we do ourselves. Sigh. I hate this!!! LOL 😀
Lord save us from your followers – which is ourselves as well. What a bloody mess.
LikeLike
In that case, we can only hope that your bigoted religion meets an early, and richly deserved, demise.
No doubt you feel the same way about my values, and have added me to the long list of those who say mean things to you. Fine–sometimes dialogue is pointless, and there is nothing to do but fight over rights and territory.
LikeLike
Being introspective about our failings and mistakes is a helpful exercise. It’s part of why I frequent this blog to get a dose of humility and a sharply focused mirror. These last few posts about evangelicals position in the culture strikes me as foolish. It sounds like the plaintive cry of the clueless after 9/11 “Why do they hate us so?”
While the question might expose the mistakes and wrong policies of our governments, the truth is that the 9/11 highjackers hate us for who we are. The only thing that will appease them is our death.
The attitude of much of our culture at the moment is the same. There are many errors and mistakes that evangelicals have made. We have much to repent of. However, we should expect that no amount of change or improvement will change how we are perceived in this profoundly anti Christian post modern world.
LikeLike
To Richard Tibbetts and Monk:
I am curious about this myself. I’ve never been able to form a relationship with Christianity and the Bible because the little that I’ve read seemed questionable and sometimes, frightening and malevolent (that might be too strong a term). I don’t understand being able to draw “Truths” from a book, written by men, and take it as the “word,” underscored by the explanation of Lev. from Monk. So, some things are culturally relative and some are absolute truths? Like what? I know and love many Christians, but my rationality always seems to deconstruct the bizarre and to me, manipulative, rhetoric surrounding what I’ve seen of Christianity.
About the public schools: I agree that many are producing somewhat illiterate students. I teach college writing, and kid you not, each semester some students are using “u” for “you” and don’t know what a sentence fragment is. A big “some.”
LikeLike
This post and most of the subsequent comments are bringing the book and movie “Lord, Save Us from Your Followers” to mind…
LikeLike
I got turns onto your blog recently. I’m puzzled by some of the points you make here, though not the ones about size-of-government issues which have set so many other people off.
You say “Issues like gay marriage go back to essential components of the Biblical narrative.” and “God’s truth is not in flux from culture to culture. What may appear to be changing standards by Christians- for instance, on slavery- is nothing more than an arrival at an honest hearing of what the Bible and God have always said.”
How can you be so sure that the understanding you and many other Christians have in 2009, that God doesn’t approve of homosexuality, is God’s truth?
As a liberal (that’s JS Mill liberal, not Limbaugh liberal), this seems like closemindedness. Along with notions of biblical inerrancy, I find this a most confusing aspect of evangelism.
Am I wrong to think of this as closemindedness? Wrong to think it is a common trait of evangelicals?
LikeLike
Oh – and least that seem like a specific snark, I’ve noticed the same thing at many of the other reformed sites.
It’s almost less two kingdoms than a switch from a Dominionist-lite to a Mennonite outlook.
LikeLike
I think I will see a great lose of freedom and prosperity in America in my life time.
Sadly, those leading the charge, will be Christians.
Many Christians just can not resist the siren like call of government power. They see their vote, their taxes, and the resulting large government oozing with social programs as what Christ wants them to do and advocate.
Welfare and poverty programs have been aimed at the African American population for decades. The idea (very Christian idea IMHO) was to “help” blacks. Help single mothers, the less educated, the poor, etc etc in the black community. Undo the evils of slavery and government mandated segregation. In other words, the government was going to make right what it had screwed up in the past (just about every point I am making parallels Native American Government Programs).
Unfortunately, today, we witness the results. The Black family unit is in shambles, Black abortions rates are tragically high, Blacks represent a highly disproportionate percentage of inmates in prison, Black on Black violence, and it goes on and on and on and on.
Now if you want to just blame Whitey (talk about myopic) then feel free.
But does God not want results?
Does God not want a strong black family unit, beautiful black babies being born, low black on black crime and violence.
Blacks have been practicing Eugenics on themselves for decades and the Government has been all to happy to help them do it.
So I would ask my fellow Christians to give some thought to voting with an eye toward results. Not just assuaging your white Christian guilt by voting for well intended programs that DON’T WORK.
LikeLike
Michael –
I agree that lots of people already held to a two kingdoms view .. but on the other hand look at how it played out ..
The evangelical left hailing Obama as the new messiah is just the flip side of the regular right wing rhetoric about the end of the world/end of abortion being just around the corner unless/if their boy/girl is voted in .. and come the last election the majority of evangelicals were dancing to the same tune, including the majority on the BHT, Lutheran included.
LikeLike
I object to the idea that conservatives who don’t support collectivist statism are somehow “against” the poor. We disagree about how best to serve the economic interests of the nation and the world but that does not allow you of different persuasions to slam my motives without knowledge. the past years have been a steady and uncountered drumbeat of how conservatives don’t care about the poor. I am tired of having people who don’t know me assume my motives for their political ends.
LikeLike
I also went to a public school and a State University. My children will most likely do the same. But you seem to be ignoring a MOUNTAIN of data. Test scores all over the country are dropping and where they are not dropping the test standards are being dropped. Every statistic I have ever seen on home schooled children shows they run circles around the test scores of publicly educated children as an average.
“Home-educated students generally score at the 65th to 80th percentile on achievement tests, 15 to 30 percentile points higher than those in public schools,” stated Brian D. Ray, founder of National Home Education Research Institute and editor of the academic journal Home School Researcher.
If you have statics showing otherwise I would love to see them.
Also your anecdotal statement “I have spent all my life working with publicly educated children and they where all quite literate” is a dodge. My point was that it should not even be possible to graduate high school illiterate and yet it happens.
I could not care less about the racial make up of any given school. We are humans, period, the sooner we all get to that view point the better. Do Christian schools have rules on the books disallowing minorities to attend? Should they recruit minorities, give free rides to minorities, while the white parents make sacrifices and pay.
For whatever reason, much of society segregates itself. How many white students attend Grambling University? Should Grambling feel guilty for the lack of a white student body? Maybe they should offer special scholarships to whites so they can diversify.
All that said, the sad truth is it is very hard for any school, public/private, white/minority, to overcome bad, ignorant, or absent parents.
LikeLike
Sam – my wife and I were missionaries in South America for 10 years. EVERY South American country has the same exact system for marriage. Marriage is civil. It is a state ceremony that takes about 10 minutes, and is often carried out in an office. It has to do with legally registering the partnership.
If you wish to have a religious ceremony (like at the local Catholic parish), that is up to you and has nothing to do with the State. The only regulation the State has is that no religious ceremony may take place before the civil ceremony. If you have no religious ceremony, the State could care less. The religious ceremony is legally meaningless.
Frankly, I wish the USA would adopt the South American system for marriage and so separate the Church from the State in this particular instance. Many evangelical missionaries that I know also think this is a great system that keeps the Church away from the State in this area.
Rob Lofland – uhm, I have bad news for you. I do not believe in Sola Scriptura. Nor does any other Orthodox believer.
LikeLike
*Naum: How can Christianity ever be conceived of as favoring an all powerful state? We’re closer to anarchists than we are to being statists.*
That overstates Naum’s position quite a bit. He says he didn’t understand how Christians could favor small government in a modern world. That’s a long way from favoring an all powerful state?
I look at it this way. You have it in your power to insure that your neighbor does not go bankrupt and lose his home, his car, maybe even his marriage, if he gets sick or injured. You do it, in the smallest way, by voting. Of course, you can become much more politically involved, but voting is something no Christian should devalue. I think government can address systemic problems that private enterprise cannot address alone. And I think we should be engaged in that debate because it implicates Jesus’s command to love our neighbor
We privatize that command or limit it to personal action, thinking that our right to vote and to make decisions regarding what our government does or does not do has no relation to what Jesus said. That’s myopic. We can, in small ways, say to the rest of the humanity that we care about our neighbor enough to see some of our taxes go to helping people who are in dire straights. Even if it’s nothing more than the simple act of voting. Maybe nothing changes, but it seems to me that that is a more holistic approach to obedience than hoping the government just leaves me alone.
LikeLike
Chris: I think the recent development is you discovering that some of us have been out here all along. Lutherans, for example, hold the doctrine of the 2 Kingdoms as part of their confession.
The media has presented all evangelicals as New Life Church. What are the rest of us supposed to do about that? We’re not interesting enough to make the news. And the younger evangelicals that Pam Chamberlain is writing about are enthusiastic Obama supporters, not anabaptists, that’s for sure.
peace
ms
LikeLike
I agree of a lot of what is said in the post – having said that it’s somewhat ironic watching a whole bunch of Christians re-discover the idea of two kingdoms just as their political star falls out the firmament.
Generally speaking American Christians are much more concentrated on the right side of the political spectrum than Christians almost anywhere else. Is that a product of better than averagely clear thinking, or is that just a reflection that they – like Christians everywhere – are influenced heavily by the culture in which they live.
LikeLike
Drew G:
On what basis does anyone have the right to reject his often stated profession of faith and his baptism?
I am a product of Public schools and I’ve spend most of my life working with public school kids. They were all quite literate. For the last 17 years I’ve worked with private and homeschoolers and the results aren’t impressive.
I know some private Christian schools turn out a great product, but so do some public schools. Public schools are very diverse. I think we have to be fair to the many excellent public schools and not be afraid to be critical of some Christian eduation. It’s not an “either/or” situation.
BTW, most private Christian schools (not mine) are almost all white. That’s an issue that we ought to be ashamed of.
peace
ms
LikeLike
Interesting.
Two thoughts.
Your statement “I am a major supporter of public education”….Really?
Public education is a mess. It is another glaring example of how our Government, amazingly, can not do anything right.
I am the product of two public school teachers, both still teaching. Our schools are graduating men and women from High school who are illiterate and can not do basic mathematics. How is that even possible? How can you GRADUATE from high school and not be able to read?
Support Public Education? Yup, I support it, support abolishing it. Scrap the whole thing and start over. Heck, lets at least be honest, rename the darn thing…Public Babysitting is more appropriate.
As far as Obama being a Christian.
I think he is about as Christian as Machiavelli was.
Of course, to be fair to Obama, I think most our politicians keep The Prince on the nightstand and blow the dust of the Bible on Sunday when they make their “public relations” appearance.
LikeLike
Bittany,
IMonk may answer you and certainly do a better job than I will but here it is from my perspective.
There are social Christians just as there are in any culture that is dominated by a particular belief system. My guess is that many if m=not most Americans fall into this group.
There are followers Jesus Christ who have trusted (faith) in the efficacy of His sacrifice and believe that it sufficient and solely capable of redeeming us both in the afterlife and as humans.
The latter group is included in the former but a minority at least in my anecdotal experience.
Even in this smaller group you will find many colors and flavors but the baseline
1 Sola scriptura (“by Scripture alone”)
2 Sola fide (“by faith alone”)
3 Sola gratia (“by grace alone”)
4 Solus Christus (“Christ alone”)
5 Soli Deo gloria (“glory to God alone”)is constant and does not move.
This is somewhat of a simplification but the Gospel of Christ actually is pretty simple.
I hope this helps.
LikeLike
Brittany:
First, let me say that I never characterized any particular text as literal or figurative. I simply said what any standard commentary on Leviticus from any Christian tradition will say in the first paragraph: It was written to ancient Israel and contains civil and ceremonial laws that apply to Israel. If they apply elsewhere, it is because they are stated elsewhere. The same is true of the Ten Commandments btw. They are an expression of God’s character for a particular group and time. That’s why most Christians don’t believe obedience has anything to do with getting to keep your land or that we are required to worship on the sabbath.
Secondly, Christian is a label referring to a belief set, not to how a person with that belief set may act in a particular cultural or political setting. So we can’t say “Christians oppose the minimum wage.” We can say “Some Christians oppose the minimum wage, others do not.”
This same thing applies to evangelicals.
LikeLike
@Naum
“So, the hypocrisy unravels when nonbelievers see Christians lobby for state involvement in marriage but oppose helping the poor (i.e, minimum wage/living wage laws, worker safety regulations, etc.…).”
I probably fall close to the political views expressed by Mr. Spencer insofar as being a libertarian Christian. Practically and anarchists.
However, I do not know one single Christian anywhere that opposes any of the things you bring up. Not because of being a Christian at any rate.
As a matter of fact most of the great social changes in American history were the result of Christian activism.
I would say that your views are simplistic and not helpful in the least in a civilized dialog.
Now here’s my big paintbrush. I find most of the left to be just as simplistic and naive in their worldview and solutions.
I am certainly guilty of the hyperbole that Mr. Spencer describes.
The culture war is like a real war in a way. One side commits an atrocity and the other reacts in kind and escalates.
Just as an aside, I find Limbaugh only mildly entertaining and certainly not someone to take seriously.
Jon Stewart is much funnier even if he is a shill for the left.
LikeLike
I-monk, what an interesting week it has been on this site! Your time and hard work is much appreciated. Like you, my political and social views do not neatly fit into a single box. My very liberal California sister used to ask me about controversial issues, “What do Christians (or evangelicals, or conservatives, or people in this valley) think about _____.” I came up with a stock answer: “I can assure you we are not homogenized.” Now, she asks what I think, and maybe what’s the range of other opinions I’m aware of. Unfortunately, there are many on either extreme end of the spectrum who do seem to be homogenized- and equally incapable of seeing the milk of human kindness, and any other positives, in those on the opposite end. I wish conservative Christians would spend more time in the bible (and in prayer, in fellowship, in getting to know their neighbors,and in ministering to real needs in the real world) than they do listening to commentators and reacting to the latest dire prophecy. I wish more Americans of whatever political or religious persuasion would spend more time in respectful dialogue like is on this site.
LikeLike
Hi Monk,
There are some things, and the confusion I am sure is due to my ignorance of Christianity, that seem contradictory, or at least, muddying the point in your piece. Your complaint is that the left or far left or whomever is categorizing you wrongly by grouping all Evangelicals together believing x, y, and z..(is that the point?). And then you go on to list that you believe x as a libertarian, against y as a conservative, believe some exact interpretation in the Bible is literal, and some figurative. Are you not just explaining that there are many different kinds of Christians, just as there are different kinds of liberals, right wingers, etc. But the fragmentation, as a non-Christian, seems only to underscore that being a Christian doesn’t mean anything, in that it is so hard to define and can mean many different things, like the term “feminism”. I wonder if you can help clear my confusion.
LikeLike
Having the government mandate min wage, poverty programs, etc–leads to a full-on class of bureaucrats. Having worked in social services for the government, the people who get the real “money” are the employees of the goverment. Those with social services degrees have a job, department, staff–and on and on it goes. It’s much the same as the “rich” employing people–poor people don’t hire people. Public service should be that–service for no pay. I don’t respect the “volunteer” programs that provide a stipend, medical coverage, etc–as public service. Being drafted right out of your “life” is public service–which is what happened in our life back in 1968. But, this is all a far-stretch from the premise of the original blog–if we are not keeping the Word of God as the basis for evangelicalism–it’s just a big club; and, there are better clubs than church to belong to–
LikeLike
Just curious on what you think about a new ballot initiative that Secretary of State Debra Bowen of California has approved for circulation that would effectively get the State of California out of the “marriage” business. Two heterosexual Southern California college students submitted a ballot measure initiative with California Attorney General Jerry Brown that would replace the term “marriage” with “domestic partnership” in California law.
I find it interesting that the initial responses of those on both sides of the issue are divided. After all, should not “marriage” be the business of the church, and “domestic partnership” the business of the state?
If one wishes to be “married”, then they need a church. The church may choose to marry them, or not. Would this not also solve the problems of the older generation, who stand to lose certain income and tax benefits if they are married by the state?
If you want to look up the news reports on this item, enter “California ballot initiatives civil unions” into your search engine.
LikeLike
“So, the hypocrisy unravels when nonbelievers see Christians lobby for state involvement in marriage but oppose helping the poor (i.e, minimum wage/living wage laws, worker safety regulations, etc.…).”
You can’t be real.
WHAT Christian lobby organizations exist to oppose helping the poor???
LikeLike
iMonk: “…liberals prefer to see Christians as a monolith”
No, that is the mainstream media presentation that dominates, and crowds out all others. James Dobson, Pat Robertson, lobbying for Prop 8, Fox News Channel decrying the “War on Christmas”, Red Envelope Day, etc.… …sure the internet revolution is going to shake this all upside down when all is said and done, but for the past 30 years, the national stage and most public recognizable face of Christianity media display has been the “religious right”…
It is fashionable for conservatives today to champion MLK, but during the time he was derided as a communist, socialist a “Beelzebub”, not a Christ follower… …for saying that true compassion involved more than flipping a coin to a beggar, for protesting against the military industrial complex, etc.…
And where did I write that I was a “liberal”? Affixing labels, again, part of the “religious right” playbook (and many on the left are just as guilty…)…
LikeLike
So despite what I’m saying here, you need to come and make the point that I’m starting with: liberals prefer to see Christians as a monolith.
Whatever. You can be “exhibit A.”
Sexuality is not a matter of interpreting Leviticus- where it’s clear what the author had to say- but of the foundations of human nature in Genesis.
Scot Mcknight would not agree with your prediction that homosexuality will be accepted as the interpretative paradigm morphs.
I’m going to take a nap. Moderation is back on.
ms
LikeLike
@iMonk: your comments on interest, you miss the point, that it is your cultural prism that makes that interpretation (that is at odds with early church history, not to say that is correct…).
We all pick and choose. Scot McKnight (again I plug his book…), says it much better than I do in his “Blue Parakeet” book. In 75-100 years, I predict that Christians then will view the homosexuality debate in the same vein that “charging interest” (or any other biblical instruction that does not make sense for the times). And they’ll look at you as “wrong” in the same manner you look at Christians 150+ years ago that justified slavery on biblical foundations.
Yes, I know Christians are not one “big caricature” — but I am addressing the “public” face and quintessential conservative Christian (many of which go to same church as me). The Rush Limbaugh listener, that disdains minimum wage, poverty aid, and whose idea of helping the poor is more oriented to “trickle down” political philosophy. Many Christians do not share those aspects (or uniformly, all planks thereof) but if you look at Christian radio, Christian TV, and the bulk of Christian media in general, it is entirely of that uniform “worldview” mind set.
LikeLike
This is where I’m a libertarian. If they abide by the rules of where they can demonstrate, the offensiveness of their message is a reminder that we don’t live in Iran. As a parent, it’s part of what I have to deal with in the real world.
LikeLike
Monk: I grew up in Lexington, Ky and have lived in a few different states. I currently live in South-Eastern Louisiana. There seems to be a never-ending supply of “Evangelicals” here that like to harass people in public settings. While many people do not agree with Mardi Gras in New Orleans, the smaller towns like the one I live in have nice, family oriented parades.
There is one “ministry” that shows up every year with signs and a bull horn to scream at all of the sinners. I don’t have a problem with someone speaking their mind in a public setting, but I overheard these guys calling 4-8 year old kids “Fornicators” and “The Killers of Christ”. Law enforcement is afraid to say anything to them for fear of a discrimination charge.
I don’t want to limit their right to free speech, but I don’t think you should be teaching somebody’s children such grown-up words without their permission. Truthfully, a grown man doesn’t have any business with a stranger’s child. What is the correct response to this situation? Do these guys want to be persecuted? Is this their “cross” to bear?
LikeLike
Lev 25: It’s civil laws and its aimed at abusive treatment of a fellow Israelite. If we are going to make all of Leviticus apply to everyone, then tattoos are forbidden, so are haircuts and you can’t eat shrimp. Leviticus isn’t a book to cite as a general law for all people. It’s specifcially given to Israel at one point in history. That matters. Making Lev a general law means major problems ensue.
Naum: Your last paragraph seems to be completely unaware of the post we’re discussing. How can you say Christians oppose helping the poor? How can you say Christians oppose all minimum wage laws? One of my best friends is a Christian attorney who does NOTHING but work for those very issues. So do thousands and thousands of other Christians. MLK was a Christian. Thousands of those working in social ministries, and lobbying the government in organizations like Bread for the World are CHRISTIANS. Never heard of Jim Wallis or Tony Campolo? Our President is a Christian!
Is it just more useful to speak of us all as one big identical caricature? Oh wait. Thats what my entire post was about.
And what makes you think all non-Christians agree with you? Thousands of atheists are libertarian and conservative.
Millions of Christians have no interest in how the government defines marriage because they don’t look to the government for the sanction of Christian marriage.
ms
LikeLike
Nice post iMonk. Color me one of those who feels frustrated by the attempts of many to say that if I believe this then I must believe all these other beliefs. That is not true.
I am left when it comes to social programs. I do not see private capital as EVER having been interested in others and I cannot see abandoning others simply on the basis of a commitment to small government. I am right when it comes to morality, human rights, constitutional freedoms, etc. I have a fair degree of libertarian in me, but more from the view that if we agree to leave each other alone, I am much more likely to have the freedom to evangelize, worship, disciple, etc.
But, all too often, I have been told by both sides that if I believe “this” I could not possibly really be supportive of “that.” I am tired of the all or nothing approach of both extremes.
LikeLike
“Interest was a civil law against charging your fellow Israelite. Like other laws that applied to the nation of Israel, these are no longer binding in the same way. It is also aimed at a clear abuse, not an ethical use.”
Your interpretation that squares with our culture today. Throughout history, the church did not interpret or perceive that edict in the same fashion.
Leviticus 25:35-38 seems pretty clear on this — interest was prohibited, full stop, no questions asked…
Scot McKnight: “You probably read this prohibition of interest the same way I do: That was then, and this is now. Reading the Bible like this is reading the Bible as Story. It unfolds and propels us to live out the Bible in our day in our way….Times have changed. God spoke in Moses’ days in Moses’ ways (about interest), and he spoke in Jesus’ days in Jesus’ ways, and he spoke in Paul’s days in Paul’s ways. And he speaks in our days in our ways – and it is our responsibility to live out what the Bible says in our days. We do this by going back so we can come forward.”
“How can Christianity ever be conceived of as favoring an all powerful state?”
We are so interconnected today, those notions are bygones. Or they serve as a convenient mental amnesia. And government is “We the People” — government is us, and the real question is accountability, not “drowning it in a bathtub”.
By the same token, you want government involved in defining marriage according to your prism view… …if it’s the church’s domain, then why must the state sanction it? So, the hypocrisy unravels when nonbelievers see Christians lobby for state involvement in marriage but oppose helping the poor (i.e, minimum wage/living wage laws, worker safety regulations, etc.…).
LikeLike
Monk: You have again touched on an important point. While all facets of media portray Americans as members of two distinct groups characterized by extremists, truthfully, the majority of our citizens fall into one group with rather moderate and centrist views. It is indeed a sad time, that we are using words like liberal and conservative as slanderous titles instead of simple descriptions. When did we decide to condemn people for their opinions rather than talk about and celebrate our differences?
LikeLike
Naum: How can Christianity ever be conceived of as favoring an all powerful state? We’re closer to anarchists than we are to being statists.
LikeLike
Interest was a civil law against charging your fellow Israelite. Like other laws that applied to the nation of Israel, these are no longer binding in the same way. It is also aimed at a clear abuse, not an ethical use.
LikeLike
“God’s truth is not in flux from culture to culture…”
But cultures do pick and choose how sin is defined, and it continues today. It’s pretty clear the biblical admonitions against charging interest, but I dare say that all those evangelicals supporting Prop 8 (or similar “defense of marriage” legislative mandates) think it would be crazy to follow those directives, or much of Leviticus for that matter.
And each time I read through the Gospels, I can’t see how any Christian could be of a small government / libertarian bent — maybe in times of antiquity, but not in a modern world, where we are so interdependent upon each other in just about all facets of life.
LikeLike
“Integrity ought to mean that you know what you’re talking about, not that you’re parroting what someone else has said about another.”
Beautiful, Michael. Nice post.
Brad
LikeLike
Ooh, you’re gonna be in trouble for calling Our Illustrious President inept a la Jimmy Carter.
LikeLike
I discovered your blog after the “Evangelical Collapse” article. Love it so far.
As for this blog, I’ve felt similarly for a while, with my own admittedly odd collection of political views. I sometimes wonder if we as Christians should even be especially involved in politics. Jesus was never a political figure, and he never took political action. When Jesus’ followers tried to crown him King he ran away. So why do Christians seek political power?
And I’ve always wondered how people can expect Christians to all have the same political beliefs when we can’t even agree on theological beliefs.
LikeLike
I suppose it’s true both the right and left have extremes and are uncharitable to one another. I do wish I could run into more right-leaning people such as yourself in person rather than the mean-spirited ones I seem to. Most Lord’s Day I try to read Matthew 5 and 6, and it reminds me anew that the log is in my own eye, so. “Lord, have mercy on me, for I am the sinner.”
Thanks for your writing.
LikeLike
Excellent piece.
I remember growing up (in the Dobson camp) and being annoyed when people assumed we listened to everything Pat Robertson said. I still don’t think I’ve ever seen his show.
Now I’m not in either camp, but it’s so difficult to still be perceived as such. When engaging a person in conversation about anything deeper than the weather, I feel the constant need to distance myself from the demonized image.
I think it comes down to laziness. It’s really easy to take the “WWE Wrestling” approach when trying to figure someone out. Dealing with the subtleties and nuances of people takes a lot of time and energy.
Some bloggers CAN handle this. For years, large media has largely sat on their butts.
LikeLike
Remember the old quote, and I don’t remember to whom to attribute it, “The differnece between the violence of the extreme left and of the extreme right is the difference between cow manure and horse manure.” (Self-moderated :)) It goes for the extreme positions of each as well as for violence.
LikeLike
The problems of the extreme left and the extreme right go beyond demonization. And their problems extend into the middle of the political spectrum as well.
They include an unwillingness to do a little research into what the other side is saying, and by that I mean an independent kind of research, much like we expect of each other when we read our Bibles or theology books or whatever. We have an obligation to educate ourselves yet we often consider ourselves educated if we merely listen to our favorite conservative or liberal commentator/talk show host/website. We do not discover for ourselves where the truth may lie.
So that when we get to discussing our politics, w come to the table with little more than impressions that are are derivative and uninformed. And then the shouting begins.
Integrity ought to mean that you know what you’re talking about, not that you’re parroting what someone else has said about another. It’s not that difficult with the advent of the internet to find out if what OReilly or Maddow or any other talking head is saying actually has some relationship to the truth. If we used the same approach to Jesus that we use when thinking about politics and government, we’d be rightfully ashamed.
Of course, the imperative to educate oneself is doubly true when we are cursed with media that does a poor job of independent investigation. It’s sad that it takes a comedian like Jon Stewart to get a guy like Jim Cramer to admit that he’s full of it. Evangelicals have been complicit in this, but that’s a larger issue for another day.
LikeLike
Nice piece. Thanks.
LikeLike