“Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?” (Joseph Welch to Sen. Joseph McCarthy during Senate hearings where McCarthy accused Army officials of harboring communists, June, 1954)
Biblically, believers are commanded to not seek their own interests but rather to pursue the interests of others (cf. Phil 2. 4). Also, in the face of oppression, we are to love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us (Mt.5:44). Yet, we are also called to defend those who are the victims of injustice (Ps. 83:3). The martyred German theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer called for the church to defend those who were the victims of injustice, whether they were members of the church or not. Biblically, it seems, that the reason one can pursue the interests of others without fear of oppression is that one should be assured that Christ and his followers are also looking out him.
Which brings we to a recent spate of attacks by FOX News commentator Glenn Beck on the Rev. Jim Wallis, founder of Sojourners, a ministry committed to Christian peace and justice by combining faith and progressive politics to strive for social justice. Last week Beck told his audience that if their pastors teach about social justice that they should leave their church and report the pastor to church authorities. His reason is that that “social justice is a perversion of the Gospel” and “a rallying cry on both the communist front and fascist front.” Beck has also called Wallis a “communist” and his attacks have also fueled WorldNetDaily, a conservative news website, to claiming that Wallis is a “longtime socialist,” “founder of the far-left magazine, Sojourners” (which he is) and former leader of the Michigan Students for a Democratic Society (which he was not).
In defense of Wallis, he is certainly in the progressive tradition. Progressives generally seek political, economic, social and moral reforms which seek to address systemic injustices in society. Wallis’ latest book, Rediscovering Values, is an examination of the abuses of Wall Street and the current economic crisis that focuses on the greed and avarice of the banking and financial industries and calls for moral-based forms of regulation. Wallis does not claim to be a leftist, Democrat, or socialist, but prefers to describe himself as part of the “moral middle,” a group that does not align itself politically to any party but considers the biblical imperatives for particular issues. It is a perspective captured in the title of a previous bestseller, God’s Politics: Why the Right Gets it Wrong and the Left Doesn’t Get it. Wallis is pro-life (a conservative issue), but also notes that being pro-life needs to extend to issues of health insurance, good schools and environment (more liberal issues). Of note is that, historically, progressives came from both parties, with notable Republicans (e.g., Theodore Roosevelt, Robert La Follette) and Democrats (e.g. Woodrow Wilson) among its champions.
What Beck has sought to do is control the definitions of terms like “social justice,” and “communist.” Beck and WorldNewsNet (in calling Wallis “far-left”) does not define the terms, but rather uses emotional language to paint Wallis as someone odious to their audiences. Relationally, any moderate Republican, people like Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, and George H.W. Bush, would all be “leftist” in comparison. Wallis, to his credit, has vowed not to personally attack Beck and has offered to discuss his ideas of social justice. Beck has responded to Wallis’ offer by stating…
“So Jim, I just wanted to pass this on to you. In my time I will respond — my time, well, kind of like God’s time, might be a day, might be a week to you, I’m not sure. But I’m going to get to it in my time, not your time. So you go ahead and you continue to do your protest thing, and that’s great. I love it. But just know — the hammer is coming, because little do you know, for eight weeks, we’ve been compiling information on you, your cute little organization, and all the other cute little people that are with you. And when the hammer comes, it’s going to be hammering hard and all through the night, over and over…”
Now I can point out that Beck’s own Church of Latter-day Saints sees social justice as essential to Mormonism. I can also note that Beck’s attacks are based on his idea of the separation of church and state, all the while he supports conservative revisionist-historian David Barton to use church influence on the state if it serves conservative ends (apparently progressive people of faith are not allowed to bring their faith into the pubic square). As the Center for American Progress notes, “Beck does not distinguish the difference between imposing one’s religious views on others and acts of civic or public engagement based on faith.” This is not an isolated tactic. On March 11th, at a forum at Cedarville University where conservative Marvin Olasky (editor or World Magazine and author or Compassionate Conservativism) met Wallis in a forum on biblical responses to poverty, Olasky continually tried to tie Wallis to socialism (he used “equality” defined as equal redistribution of wealth) and read a passage from a fictious “Sojourner’s Bible” where he interpreted the parable of the Good Samaritan in socialist terms and attributed this to Wallis and his organization. Wallis, to his credit, not only refuted Olasky’s claims but did so in a way that was much more gracious than how Olasky (and more recently Beck) have been treating him.
Here is my point—where are the brethren standing up to Beck for his slanderous attacks on Wallis and his perversion of a concept that is central to the Scriptures themselves? To his credit Albert Mohler, conservative President of Southern Baptist Seminary, has challenged Beck’s attack on social justice. However, who will stand up to Beck on behalf of Wallis? Beck’s ruthless attacks, both now and in the future, can only continue if he is provided cover by conservative religious leaders that will tolerate (i.e., passively endorse) these attacks. Where is Rick Warren, James Dobson, or other prominent conservative religious leaders? I have a very difficult time believing that Beck would continue his attacks against Wallis if conservative people of faith would simply say that they disagree with Wallis’s theology but the personal attacks are both uncalled for and violate the spirit of grace that we, as Christians, are called to exhibit. Failure to do so provides Beck the tacit assent he needs to continue his campaign of slander.
To close let me cite the confession of another German pastor, Martin Niemoller, in a speech he gave in 1946 on his failure to address the oppression of the Nazis.
"They came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me and by that time no one was left to speak up."
Showing posts with label General Considerations. Show all posts
Showing posts with label General Considerations. Show all posts
Friday, March 19, 2010
Friday, April 17, 2009
God is Not Dead…. And Neither is Christianity (One Can’t Say the Same for Christendom)
“God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him.”
~ Friedrich Nietzsche, The Gay Science (aka Joyous Wisdom)
Poor Nietzsche—after publishing this line in 1882 it immediately became one of his most quoted and least understood statements. Nietzsche was not decrying the physical death of God but the demise of external and absolute forms of morality. In many ways the things that Nietzsche lamented are the things that many evangelical social critics are quick to point out—we live in an age where there are no absolutes, and one which many these same critics label as the emergence of a post-modern culture.
I am not sure how postmodern Nietzsche’s quote is (or even how postmodern the culture is) but a 1966 cover of Time magazine asked “Is God Dead?” Less than twenty years later the U.S. witnessed the emergence of what become known as the “Moral Majority,” and in the first decade of this millennium the “Religious Right” was said to be a major force in American politics. Apparently the answer to Time magazine’s question was a resound “NO.”
I was in a bookstore last week and there on the magazine rack I saw a recent Newsweek cover, “The Decline and Fall of Christian America.” Apparently for author Jon Meacham the inability of the Religious Right to usher enough of the faithful to the polls last November and prevent a sweeping victory by the Democrats suggests that Christianity in general, and evangelicalism in particular, is on the cultural decline in the US. This perception was not helped recently when President Obama, speaking in Turkey said, “We do not consider ourselves a Christian nation.” Jim Wallis, quoted in the Newsweek article, noted that there is still a vital role that religion will continue to play in public discourse, it just may not be the role or constitute the same message that Religious Right has presented since the 1980s.
Wallis, like many evangelicals, believes that the Religious Right was a “mistake” (his term, not mine)—a movement that sought to implement a “Christian” agenda (defined in very narrow terms) by tying it almost inextricably to the right wing of the Republican party. After the 2008 election many fiscal Republicans began lamenting their relationship to the Religious Right noting that the rigidity of the moral agenda was out of step with the mainstream and prevented fiscal conservatives from promoting the fundamental tenets on which the Republican Party traditionally stood.
Personally, I believe that the linking of a narrow moral agenda with a particular political party was both a theological and political short-sighted. Theologically, by limiting the religious debate to almost exclusively to abortion, abstinence, and homosexuality (seems like sex is a big issue for evangelicals) the church failed to look at social issues in which Christ and Scripture speak in much greater extent—poverty, injustice, environmental stewardship. The result, politically, was that many evangelicals ignored these issues (which traditionally have been more concerns for Democrats), while voting (in an almost Pavlovian fashion) for any Republican that claimed to be “pro-life,” or “pro-family.” The result was that the church helped to promote the exacerbation of many of the social sins to which Christ and the prophets condemn. In the eyes of many unbelievers the church began to be viewed as pro-war, anti-gay, anti-living wage and health-care, unenlightened and anti-scientific in general.
Which brings me back to Newsweek and Meacham, is there a decline and fall of Christian America? Assuming that the United States ever was a “Christian” nation (a notion I take exception with) the distinction needs to be made between “Christendom” (the linking of the church to the social, political, and economic mechanisms of power) and Christianity as a creed that stands in contrast and can speak truth to power. The apostle John notes this relationship in his first epistle when he writes, “Do not love the world not the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him” (1 Jn. 2:15).
Does this mean that Christianity does not have a place in public discourse—absolutely not. That place, however, may best expressed by theologian Walter Bruggermann, in his book The Prophetic Imagination, when he writes,
“The tasks of a prophetic ministry is to nurture, nourish, and evoke a consciousness and perception alternative to the consciousness and perception of the dominant culture around is.”
A prophetic ministry is counter-cultural and possesses the ability to speak truth to power. The prophets were not welcome by the political, religious, and economic elites of their day because they condemned the status quo of which they had a vested stake. Jesus was not welcomed by the religious leaders of His time, noting that they enjoyed social and political status by aligning themselves to the existing order (who else could get an audience with a provincial governor and expedite a capital trial and execution in less than a week?). If Meacham is highlighting the decline of Christendom then so be it—it may be the best thing for the church—for it will mean that social issues can no longer be expected to win simply because they are “Christian.” The church under Christendom often seemed more interested in maintaining access to power than access to people. In the end this emphasis has tended to cost the loss of access to both. If America is truly becoming “post-Christian” (a term that seems more cogent than post-modern) then the church's influence in public discourse will once again have to demonstrate the relevance of the gospel by winning debates on the basis of how Christianity seeks to work for the common good of all people.
~ Friedrich Nietzsche, The Gay Science (aka Joyous Wisdom)
Poor Nietzsche—after publishing this line in 1882 it immediately became one of his most quoted and least understood statements. Nietzsche was not decrying the physical death of God but the demise of external and absolute forms of morality. In many ways the things that Nietzsche lamented are the things that many evangelical social critics are quick to point out—we live in an age where there are no absolutes, and one which many these same critics label as the emergence of a post-modern culture.
I am not sure how postmodern Nietzsche’s quote is (or even how postmodern the culture is) but a 1966 cover of Time magazine asked “Is God Dead?” Less than twenty years later the U.S. witnessed the emergence of what become known as the “Moral Majority,” and in the first decade of this millennium the “Religious Right” was said to be a major force in American politics. Apparently the answer to Time magazine’s question was a resound “NO.”
I was in a bookstore last week and there on the magazine rack I saw a recent Newsweek cover, “The Decline and Fall of Christian America.” Apparently for author Jon Meacham the inability of the Religious Right to usher enough of the faithful to the polls last November and prevent a sweeping victory by the Democrats suggests that Christianity in general, and evangelicalism in particular, is on the cultural decline in the US. This perception was not helped recently when President Obama, speaking in Turkey said, “We do not consider ourselves a Christian nation.” Jim Wallis, quoted in the Newsweek article, noted that there is still a vital role that religion will continue to play in public discourse, it just may not be the role or constitute the same message that Religious Right has presented since the 1980s.
Wallis, like many evangelicals, believes that the Religious Right was a “mistake” (his term, not mine)—a movement that sought to implement a “Christian” agenda (defined in very narrow terms) by tying it almost inextricably to the right wing of the Republican party. After the 2008 election many fiscal Republicans began lamenting their relationship to the Religious Right noting that the rigidity of the moral agenda was out of step with the mainstream and prevented fiscal conservatives from promoting the fundamental tenets on which the Republican Party traditionally stood.
Personally, I believe that the linking of a narrow moral agenda with a particular political party was both a theological and political short-sighted. Theologically, by limiting the religious debate to almost exclusively to abortion, abstinence, and homosexuality (seems like sex is a big issue for evangelicals) the church failed to look at social issues in which Christ and Scripture speak in much greater extent—poverty, injustice, environmental stewardship. The result, politically, was that many evangelicals ignored these issues (which traditionally have been more concerns for Democrats), while voting (in an almost Pavlovian fashion) for any Republican that claimed to be “pro-life,” or “pro-family.” The result was that the church helped to promote the exacerbation of many of the social sins to which Christ and the prophets condemn. In the eyes of many unbelievers the church began to be viewed as pro-war, anti-gay, anti-living wage and health-care, unenlightened and anti-scientific in general.
Which brings me back to Newsweek and Meacham, is there a decline and fall of Christian America? Assuming that the United States ever was a “Christian” nation (a notion I take exception with) the distinction needs to be made between “Christendom” (the linking of the church to the social, political, and economic mechanisms of power) and Christianity as a creed that stands in contrast and can speak truth to power. The apostle John notes this relationship in his first epistle when he writes, “Do not love the world not the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him” (1 Jn. 2:15).
Does this mean that Christianity does not have a place in public discourse—absolutely not. That place, however, may best expressed by theologian Walter Bruggermann, in his book The Prophetic Imagination, when he writes,
“The tasks of a prophetic ministry is to nurture, nourish, and evoke a consciousness and perception alternative to the consciousness and perception of the dominant culture around is.”
A prophetic ministry is counter-cultural and possesses the ability to speak truth to power. The prophets were not welcome by the political, religious, and economic elites of their day because they condemned the status quo of which they had a vested stake. Jesus was not welcomed by the religious leaders of His time, noting that they enjoyed social and political status by aligning themselves to the existing order (who else could get an audience with a provincial governor and expedite a capital trial and execution in less than a week?). If Meacham is highlighting the decline of Christendom then so be it—it may be the best thing for the church—for it will mean that social issues can no longer be expected to win simply because they are “Christian.” The church under Christendom often seemed more interested in maintaining access to power than access to people. In the end this emphasis has tended to cost the loss of access to both. If America is truly becoming “post-Christian” (a term that seems more cogent than post-modern) then the church's influence in public discourse will once again have to demonstrate the relevance of the gospel by winning debates on the basis of how Christianity seeks to work for the common good of all people.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
The (Myth) of the Liberal Media
Most mornings I will workout in the fitness center of the university where I teach. I find it a great way to start my day. The equipment is top-of-the-line and I enjoy socializing with my fellow “workout warriors.” The only down-side (if I can all it that) is that the news station of choice at the gym is FOX News. So each morning I not only spend my time with my workout buddies but also share intimate moments with my FOX & Friends.
Lately, my (not so much) FOX friends, have been having a difficult time. With Obama ahead in most presidential polls they have been trying, in their interminable “fair and balanced” style, to explain how such a situation could happen when (obviously) most of nation would be hurt by having a Democrat (any Democrat) in the White House, the Senate, the House of Representatives, or even existing on the planet. This morning they belittled Colin Powell for his endorsement of Obama (he was never a real conservative anyway), have cried “sour grapes” over Obama spending more than McCain (apparently this wasn’t an issue when Bush out-spent Kerry in 2004), and complained about voter fraud (no mention of 2000 or 2004 and, since voter fraud is a felony, they fail to mention that no criminal charges have yet been filed). FOX has been painfully silent on the abandonment of conservative intellectuals from McCain (another possible topic). The biggest explanation, however, for this troubling turn of presidential politics (for FOX) has been the influence of the mainstream or “liberal media” and its impact on voter perceptions.
The idea of (as well as the phrase) the liberal media, as former GOP media specialist David Brock points out in The Republican Noise Machine, was created by Vice-President Spiro Agnew, as a “straw man” to the “silent majority.” The mainstream media was consistently critical of then President Nixon’s Vietnam War policies and Agnew used the idea of the liberal media (and the elitists that worked there) to note that they should be more responsible to the general public whom they were to serve. While some media critics noted that a slight anti-war bias may have existed, opinion polls at the time of Agnew’s criticism showed that most people viewed their news (both television and print) as essentially objective.
The idea of a liberal media has been used by conservative media outlets (most notably talk radio and FOX News) as a way of marketing themselves as voice of the majority and as a way of discrediting anything that might be said by the “liberal elite” (as if getting a good education from a great school violates the American Dream and renders you unfit for public service). Of note, however, is that the term “liberal media” has been reduced to a rhetorical term—one that generates negative emotional responses but which has been separated from thought. In essence, what conservative media has successfully done is, by defining the opposition before they can define themselves, “hijack” language and separated it from rational discourse.
The term “liberal” can have many meanings. Now, to be fair, the mainstream media can, in fact, be liberal to a particular position. For example, if the mainstream media promotes a position that is pro-choice it will be perceived as liberal by social conservatives that are pro-life. If this is what my friends, who complain about the liberal media, mean by the term then I concede the point—the mainstream media is (in this regard) liberal. This, however, represents attaching content to the term. Rarely is this the way the term is used in conservative media. In most cases the term liberal is left undefined in order to allow conservatives to elicit a negative emotional response to criticisms leveled against conservatives by the mainstream.
What is the substance of much criticism by the mainstream media (when it actually is substantive)? They are varied but generally they have to do with calling into question the unmitigated extent of corporate power and wealth elites on all aspects of public life and the resulting damage of commercialization on individual, social, and environmental health. To this extent conservative media helps to perpetuate an ideological position that bolsters the interests of the corporate elites by presenting their interests as those that are in the best interests of the “silent majority” of Americans.
The problem is that, aside from a few socially conservative positions (like abortion), the liberal media may not be that liberal at all. A recent examination of the all presidential media coverage by the database giant Lexus Nexus concluded that 26% of all news was slanted in favor of Obama and 22% was slanted in favor of McCain. OK, granted a bias but not nearly to the extent that you would conclude by listening to the righteous indignation of my Fox Friends. Lexus Nexus concluded that 52% of news coverage regarding the presidential election was essentially objective.
Now, I will grant the point that most reporters in the mainstream media are registered Democrats, but the majority of editors, and most publishers, are not. First, corporate media (of which all of the mainstream media is a part) benefits from a corporatized view of the world. To call that view excessively into question would be to work against its best interests which is, after all, to sell news. Second, especially in the case of television, revenue is generated by corporate sponsorship. If the public was truly as conservative as FOX and others contend, they could not exist because a) they would not have viewership and b) they would not be able to sell advertising time. Granted, news viewership is down (as is newspaper readership) but not necessarily because the mainstream is selling an ideological position that no one is buying. Rather, it seems that the corporatization of media has placed a premium on entertainment and helped create a general apathy about politics so that, as media research tends to show, the younger an audience the less interested they tend to be in more serious journalism.
So, is the mainstream media liberal? I would contend not. It is, at best, moderate. Some outlets may run moderate-left (e.g., CBS) while some moderate-right (e.g., ABC—any network that gives John Stossel regular air time to hawk his extreme corporate views cannot be called liberal). If you want to really want to experience liberal media read The Nation or Mother Jones magazines (if you are a staunch conservative don’t start with The Progressive unless you have a Cadillac health insurance policy), listen to Air America or the Pacifica radio networks or tune into the Randi Rhodes Show.
Rhetorical language, like any other form of symbolism, is wrapped up in power, and power (first and foremost) seeks to preserve its own position of privilege. The use of the term “liberal media,” when used by conservatives, devoid of content, is a rhetorical term designed to generate more heat than light. In the end such rhetorical devices are like the carnival shell game, except in this game one must not only ask where is the pea but also why is the illusionist trying so hard to hide it? In the carnival game if you find the pea the illusionist loses; in the conservative media shell game if you begin to discover what the conservative media is hiding they also run the risk of losing—and for them the stakes are much too high.
Lately, my (not so much) FOX friends, have been having a difficult time. With Obama ahead in most presidential polls they have been trying, in their interminable “fair and balanced” style, to explain how such a situation could happen when (obviously) most of nation would be hurt by having a Democrat (any Democrat) in the White House, the Senate, the House of Representatives, or even existing on the planet. This morning they belittled Colin Powell for his endorsement of Obama (he was never a real conservative anyway), have cried “sour grapes” over Obama spending more than McCain (apparently this wasn’t an issue when Bush out-spent Kerry in 2004), and complained about voter fraud (no mention of 2000 or 2004 and, since voter fraud is a felony, they fail to mention that no criminal charges have yet been filed). FOX has been painfully silent on the abandonment of conservative intellectuals from McCain (another possible topic). The biggest explanation, however, for this troubling turn of presidential politics (for FOX) has been the influence of the mainstream or “liberal media” and its impact on voter perceptions.
The idea of (as well as the phrase) the liberal media, as former GOP media specialist David Brock points out in The Republican Noise Machine, was created by Vice-President Spiro Agnew, as a “straw man” to the “silent majority.” The mainstream media was consistently critical of then President Nixon’s Vietnam War policies and Agnew used the idea of the liberal media (and the elitists that worked there) to note that they should be more responsible to the general public whom they were to serve. While some media critics noted that a slight anti-war bias may have existed, opinion polls at the time of Agnew’s criticism showed that most people viewed their news (both television and print) as essentially objective.
The idea of a liberal media has been used by conservative media outlets (most notably talk radio and FOX News) as a way of marketing themselves as voice of the majority and as a way of discrediting anything that might be said by the “liberal elite” (as if getting a good education from a great school violates the American Dream and renders you unfit for public service). Of note, however, is that the term “liberal media” has been reduced to a rhetorical term—one that generates negative emotional responses but which has been separated from thought. In essence, what conservative media has successfully done is, by defining the opposition before they can define themselves, “hijack” language and separated it from rational discourse.
The term “liberal” can have many meanings. Now, to be fair, the mainstream media can, in fact, be liberal to a particular position. For example, if the mainstream media promotes a position that is pro-choice it will be perceived as liberal by social conservatives that are pro-life. If this is what my friends, who complain about the liberal media, mean by the term then I concede the point—the mainstream media is (in this regard) liberal. This, however, represents attaching content to the term. Rarely is this the way the term is used in conservative media. In most cases the term liberal is left undefined in order to allow conservatives to elicit a negative emotional response to criticisms leveled against conservatives by the mainstream.
What is the substance of much criticism by the mainstream media (when it actually is substantive)? They are varied but generally they have to do with calling into question the unmitigated extent of corporate power and wealth elites on all aspects of public life and the resulting damage of commercialization on individual, social, and environmental health. To this extent conservative media helps to perpetuate an ideological position that bolsters the interests of the corporate elites by presenting their interests as those that are in the best interests of the “silent majority” of Americans.
The problem is that, aside from a few socially conservative positions (like abortion), the liberal media may not be that liberal at all. A recent examination of the all presidential media coverage by the database giant Lexus Nexus concluded that 26% of all news was slanted in favor of Obama and 22% was slanted in favor of McCain. OK, granted a bias but not nearly to the extent that you would conclude by listening to the righteous indignation of my Fox Friends. Lexus Nexus concluded that 52% of news coverage regarding the presidential election was essentially objective.
Now, I will grant the point that most reporters in the mainstream media are registered Democrats, but the majority of editors, and most publishers, are not. First, corporate media (of which all of the mainstream media is a part) benefits from a corporatized view of the world. To call that view excessively into question would be to work against its best interests which is, after all, to sell news. Second, especially in the case of television, revenue is generated by corporate sponsorship. If the public was truly as conservative as FOX and others contend, they could not exist because a) they would not have viewership and b) they would not be able to sell advertising time. Granted, news viewership is down (as is newspaper readership) but not necessarily because the mainstream is selling an ideological position that no one is buying. Rather, it seems that the corporatization of media has placed a premium on entertainment and helped create a general apathy about politics so that, as media research tends to show, the younger an audience the less interested they tend to be in more serious journalism.
So, is the mainstream media liberal? I would contend not. It is, at best, moderate. Some outlets may run moderate-left (e.g., CBS) while some moderate-right (e.g., ABC—any network that gives John Stossel regular air time to hawk his extreme corporate views cannot be called liberal). If you want to really want to experience liberal media read The Nation or Mother Jones magazines (if you are a staunch conservative don’t start with The Progressive unless you have a Cadillac health insurance policy), listen to Air America or the Pacifica radio networks or tune into the Randi Rhodes Show.
Rhetorical language, like any other form of symbolism, is wrapped up in power, and power (first and foremost) seeks to preserve its own position of privilege. The use of the term “liberal media,” when used by conservatives, devoid of content, is a rhetorical term designed to generate more heat than light. In the end such rhetorical devices are like the carnival shell game, except in this game one must not only ask where is the pea but also why is the illusionist trying so hard to hide it? In the carnival game if you find the pea the illusionist loses; in the conservative media shell game if you begin to discover what the conservative media is hiding they also run the risk of losing—and for them the stakes are much too high.
Monday, September 8, 2008
Hebrews and Romans
“The Lord God has told us what is right and what he demands: “See that justice is done, let mercy be your first concern, and humbly obey your God” Micah 6:8 (CEV)
In the days leading up the election there will be much talk about candidates appealing to “values voters.” These voters have often been portrayed as members of the evangelical right who generally vote in ways they believe consistent with the teachings of the Bible. Values voters are said to have helped launch the “Reagan Revolution” in the 1980s and have become an essential part of the Republican base, to whom the recent selection of Sarah Palin to the Republican Presidential ticket is designed to appeal.
There is, however, another group, generally not identified as values voters, whose political affiliation has generally reflected their understanding of the God of the Bible. Jewish-Americans have historically tended to voted Democratic despite the Republican Party’s almost unquestioning support for Israel. This allegiance to the principles of the Democratic Party reflect an ethical understanding deeply embedded in Judaism and the teachings of the Old Testament. It is a perspective that any comprehensive approach to voting biblically must take into consideration.
Hebrew society was build upon two ethical principles that were to be kept in balance. The first is the concept of justice (mishpat) which brings about equitable and harmonious relationships between people. This justice was pursued through fair distribution of resources so that we read that God “executes justice for the orphans and the widows. He cares for foreigners and gives them food and clothing” (Deut 10:18). Second is the principle of loving kindness or compassion know as hesed. These two ethical principles are interwoven in the Hebrew Bible and reflect God’s expectation that His people are not only to care for those who are disadvantaged by society, but to do so in spirit that demonstrated their value and worth. When combined and practiced, justice and compassion work to bring about wholeness, unity, and balance to the society (known in Hebrew as peace or shalom).
These principles were so important to the ethical teachings of God that He saw fit to enslave the Hebrews in Egypt for 400 years. It was this bondage to which God consistently referred as part of Israel’s collective ethical consciousness, “you should also care for [those oppressed] because you were foreigners in Egypt” (Deut. 10:19). The bondage worked to cement onto the ethical consciousness of the Jews that they should not be oppressors since they themselves had once been oppressed. As theologian Richard Foster notes, “economically and socially, the vision of shalom means a caring and consideration for all peoples. The greed of the rich is tempered by the needs of the poor. Under the reign of God’s shalom the poor are no longer oppressed, because ravaging greed no longer rules.”
The theme of “America first” which was consistently echoed throughout the Republican convention last week is also reflective of the ethical principles of a society in antiquity—that of ancient Rome. The collective ethic of Roman society was built on the principles of law and of duty. Law was obedience to authority for authority reflected the common good and was demonstrated through the practice of self-control and discipline. Duty was exercised through self-sacrifice, where the good of the individual is secondary to order and the benefit of the group. It is the ethic theme of the great Roman epic the Aeneid, whose main character must even sacrifice his love of a woman to found the city of Rome. Duty, loyalty and sacrifice for nation were the attitudes and behaviors most valued in Rome.
These Roman values are not necessarily in opposition to the righteousness of God but there is one critical consideration. When Israel sought to return to the monarchy of Egypt, to be like the nations around them, they were warned by the prophet Samuel that a king would rule the land for his benefit and those of his elite (1 Samuel 8:11-18). Jewish justice and compassion is not opposed to duty and sacrifice, in many ways it demands it. However, it also understands that the definition of what is good, what is right, and what is just cannot rest with those in power, whose tendency is to define these terms in ways which benefit the wealthy at the expense of the poor. To allow justice to be defined by those who do not experience injustice is to violate both justice and compassion, threaten shalom and results in the judgment of God. The Jewish-American tradition of values voting in alignment with the Democratic Party reflects an overall understanding that, while opposed on some issues, the peace and prosperity of the have’s cannot be secured at the expense of the poor and disenfranchised. A just society, in Old Testament terms, is defined by how it treats the least of those among them. It is an ethic that is restated by Jesus in Matthew 22:37-40, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and mind. This is the first and most important commandment. The second most important commandment is like this one. And it is, "Love others as much as you love yourself." All the Law of Moses and the Books of the Prophets are based on these two commandments.”
In the days leading up the election there will be much talk about candidates appealing to “values voters.” These voters have often been portrayed as members of the evangelical right who generally vote in ways they believe consistent with the teachings of the Bible. Values voters are said to have helped launch the “Reagan Revolution” in the 1980s and have become an essential part of the Republican base, to whom the recent selection of Sarah Palin to the Republican Presidential ticket is designed to appeal.
There is, however, another group, generally not identified as values voters, whose political affiliation has generally reflected their understanding of the God of the Bible. Jewish-Americans have historically tended to voted Democratic despite the Republican Party’s almost unquestioning support for Israel. This allegiance to the principles of the Democratic Party reflect an ethical understanding deeply embedded in Judaism and the teachings of the Old Testament. It is a perspective that any comprehensive approach to voting biblically must take into consideration.
Hebrew society was build upon two ethical principles that were to be kept in balance. The first is the concept of justice (mishpat) which brings about equitable and harmonious relationships between people. This justice was pursued through fair distribution of resources so that we read that God “executes justice for the orphans and the widows. He cares for foreigners and gives them food and clothing” (Deut 10:18). Second is the principle of loving kindness or compassion know as hesed. These two ethical principles are interwoven in the Hebrew Bible and reflect God’s expectation that His people are not only to care for those who are disadvantaged by society, but to do so in spirit that demonstrated their value and worth. When combined and practiced, justice and compassion work to bring about wholeness, unity, and balance to the society (known in Hebrew as peace or shalom).
These principles were so important to the ethical teachings of God that He saw fit to enslave the Hebrews in Egypt for 400 years. It was this bondage to which God consistently referred as part of Israel’s collective ethical consciousness, “you should also care for [those oppressed] because you were foreigners in Egypt” (Deut. 10:19). The bondage worked to cement onto the ethical consciousness of the Jews that they should not be oppressors since they themselves had once been oppressed. As theologian Richard Foster notes, “economically and socially, the vision of shalom means a caring and consideration for all peoples. The greed of the rich is tempered by the needs of the poor. Under the reign of God’s shalom the poor are no longer oppressed, because ravaging greed no longer rules.”
The theme of “America first” which was consistently echoed throughout the Republican convention last week is also reflective of the ethical principles of a society in antiquity—that of ancient Rome. The collective ethic of Roman society was built on the principles of law and of duty. Law was obedience to authority for authority reflected the common good and was demonstrated through the practice of self-control and discipline. Duty was exercised through self-sacrifice, where the good of the individual is secondary to order and the benefit of the group. It is the ethic theme of the great Roman epic the Aeneid, whose main character must even sacrifice his love of a woman to found the city of Rome. Duty, loyalty and sacrifice for nation were the attitudes and behaviors most valued in Rome.
These Roman values are not necessarily in opposition to the righteousness of God but there is one critical consideration. When Israel sought to return to the monarchy of Egypt, to be like the nations around them, they were warned by the prophet Samuel that a king would rule the land for his benefit and those of his elite (1 Samuel 8:11-18). Jewish justice and compassion is not opposed to duty and sacrifice, in many ways it demands it. However, it also understands that the definition of what is good, what is right, and what is just cannot rest with those in power, whose tendency is to define these terms in ways which benefit the wealthy at the expense of the poor. To allow justice to be defined by those who do not experience injustice is to violate both justice and compassion, threaten shalom and results in the judgment of God. The Jewish-American tradition of values voting in alignment with the Democratic Party reflects an overall understanding that, while opposed on some issues, the peace and prosperity of the have’s cannot be secured at the expense of the poor and disenfranchised. A just society, in Old Testament terms, is defined by how it treats the least of those among them. It is an ethic that is restated by Jesus in Matthew 22:37-40, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and mind. This is the first and most important commandment. The second most important commandment is like this one. And it is, "Love others as much as you love yourself." All the Law of Moses and the Books of the Prophets are based on these two commandments.”
Monday, August 4, 2008
Evangelical Conservatives and Progressives
“Woe to those who enact evil statues, and to those who constantly record unjust decisions, so as to deprive the needy of justice, and to rob the poor of My people of their rights.” Isaiah 10:1-2a
“And, insomuch as we know that, by His divine law, nations like individuals are subjected to punishments and chastisement in this world, may we not justly fear that the awful calamity of civil war, which now desolates the land may be but a punishment inflicted upon us for our presumptuous sins to the needful end of our national reformation as a whole people?” Abraham Lincoln, Letter to Congress Calling for a National Day of Prayer and Fasting (April 1863)
When Lincoln asked Congress to declare a national day of prayer and fasting, he recognized that the on-going bloodshed of the Civil War was part of the retributive justice of God to the U.S. for preserving the institution of slavery. As Lincoln noted, “Every drop of blood drawn with the lash, shall be paid with another drawn by the sword.” Lincoln was not so naïve as to believe that the slave owner would seek to act individually from conscience enmasse as a means of ending the institution of slavery. As note in his famous “A House Divided” speech Lincoln (quoting Christ) noted that the nation could not endure half slave and half free. Either the laws of the land must permit slavery as an institution or it must be abolished.
One issue that separates evangelical conservatives from evangelical progressives (a term I use in the historic sense of the word) is the issue of sin and society. As evangelicals almost all agree that the reason for trouble and discord in the world is sin. Drawing on the historical reality of the Genesis 3 account of the entry of sin into the world, the creation God proclaimed as good (Gen 1:31) was corrupted by the entry of sin into the world. Consequently, the more sin in the world the more corruption of the good ensues. In terms of societies, the more a society tolerates sin and allows sin to flourish the more perverse and morally weak the society will become. The result of this the proliferation of sin, as the Bible reports in many cases throughout the Old Testament, is the judgment and destruction of the society. Inversely, if you want a society to flourish (or at least avoid the judgment of God) there must be repentance of sin and turning to God (as was the case of Nineveh in the book of Jonah). The less sin in a society means the less corruption of the good. On this almost all evangelicals agree.
Where evangelical conservative and progressives disagree is on the nature of repentance. Conservatives, who tend to emphasize free moral choice and personal accountability, see sin and repentance as an individual issue. If individuals sin it increases the amount of total sin in the world and, therefore, the society gets more perverse—increasing the likelihood of divine judgment. The solution, therefore, is to get individuals to sin less. If people stop sinning the sum total of sin in the world is reduced and the society ameliorated.
This leads conservatives to engage in legislative morality—in most cases to provide significant disincentives to individuals so that they will not sin. For example, strong sentencing laws for crimes will cause people to think twice about a crime and therefore (it is hoped) decrease propensity to do the crime. For many in the society this approach to morality is seen as harsh and lacking in compassion. George W. Bush sought the Presidency in 2000 he proclaimed himself a “compassionate conservative” in order to dispel this widely held view of conservatives. Evangelical conservatives (generally) tend to view such harsh measures as, in fact, compassionate. If strong medicine helps the individual to avoid sin and helps the nation avoid the judgment of God, the medicine becomes justified.
Generally, evangelical progressives note that freewill and personal accountability are important but not sufficient to explain social sin and its consequences. Like Lincoln, it is naïve and insufficient to simply expect people individually to stop sinning because the legality of some sin allows it to continue in a way that erodes at the moral health of the nation. To progressives, sinful people create sinful institutions and laws which embed sin in their very practices. Thus, one can experience the negative consequences of sin, can suffer adversely from its social, physical, psychological or spiritual effects and never have actually performed the sin. Thus, as the prophet Isaiah records, God declares the robbing of social justice to the poor and needy not the result of their own sin but from the institutions and laws of the powerful developed to protect their positions of power and privilege.
The result of this institutionalized sin is twofold. First, as sin becomes normal (i.e., legal) to the point where a person can engage in sin without seeing it as sin. In many cases, slavery being an example, the church may actually defend the sinful institution and use Scripture to defend it. In practice this can produce institutions and policies in economics, education, health care, environmental stewardship, military spending, etc. which may be treated as value neutral by conservatives (despite the claims of their worldview theology) but which, in fact, are spiritually and morally imbued. For progressives the amount spend on the military, how resources are allocated, who receives health care (and how much) are questions that demonstrate the spiritual heart and soul of a nation.
Second, people can be effected by sin without engaging in the practice of the sin themselves. For example, blacks in apartheid South Africa were subject to social, economic, political, and educational injustices (to name a few) solely because they were black. Whites, on the other hand, were awarded benefits in all of these areas (and many others) simply upon the basis of being white. Neither group had to actively engage in the sin of racism to experience these effects. Simply, they experienced benefit or injustice by the social institutions of a society that were designed to protect power and privilege at the expense of another group.
As a result, for evangelical progressives, not only must individual sin be dealt with but there must also be active consideration and addressing of sin embedded into the institutions and practices of the society. For progressive evangelicals all aspects of society, from personal conduct to social policy are moral issues. The family budget and the federal budget all show the spiritual priorities of those who establish that budget—and the departure of either from the priorities of God is of moral concern and in need of being addressed. For the nation, just as it is with the individual, “where your treasure is, there will your heart also be” (Mt. 6:21).
“And, insomuch as we know that, by His divine law, nations like individuals are subjected to punishments and chastisement in this world, may we not justly fear that the awful calamity of civil war, which now desolates the land may be but a punishment inflicted upon us for our presumptuous sins to the needful end of our national reformation as a whole people?” Abraham Lincoln, Letter to Congress Calling for a National Day of Prayer and Fasting (April 1863)
When Lincoln asked Congress to declare a national day of prayer and fasting, he recognized that the on-going bloodshed of the Civil War was part of the retributive justice of God to the U.S. for preserving the institution of slavery. As Lincoln noted, “Every drop of blood drawn with the lash, shall be paid with another drawn by the sword.” Lincoln was not so naïve as to believe that the slave owner would seek to act individually from conscience enmasse as a means of ending the institution of slavery. As note in his famous “A House Divided” speech Lincoln (quoting Christ) noted that the nation could not endure half slave and half free. Either the laws of the land must permit slavery as an institution or it must be abolished.
One issue that separates evangelical conservatives from evangelical progressives (a term I use in the historic sense of the word) is the issue of sin and society. As evangelicals almost all agree that the reason for trouble and discord in the world is sin. Drawing on the historical reality of the Genesis 3 account of the entry of sin into the world, the creation God proclaimed as good (Gen 1:31) was corrupted by the entry of sin into the world. Consequently, the more sin in the world the more corruption of the good ensues. In terms of societies, the more a society tolerates sin and allows sin to flourish the more perverse and morally weak the society will become. The result of this the proliferation of sin, as the Bible reports in many cases throughout the Old Testament, is the judgment and destruction of the society. Inversely, if you want a society to flourish (or at least avoid the judgment of God) there must be repentance of sin and turning to God (as was the case of Nineveh in the book of Jonah). The less sin in a society means the less corruption of the good. On this almost all evangelicals agree.
Where evangelical conservative and progressives disagree is on the nature of repentance. Conservatives, who tend to emphasize free moral choice and personal accountability, see sin and repentance as an individual issue. If individuals sin it increases the amount of total sin in the world and, therefore, the society gets more perverse—increasing the likelihood of divine judgment. The solution, therefore, is to get individuals to sin less. If people stop sinning the sum total of sin in the world is reduced and the society ameliorated.
This leads conservatives to engage in legislative morality—in most cases to provide significant disincentives to individuals so that they will not sin. For example, strong sentencing laws for crimes will cause people to think twice about a crime and therefore (it is hoped) decrease propensity to do the crime. For many in the society this approach to morality is seen as harsh and lacking in compassion. George W. Bush sought the Presidency in 2000 he proclaimed himself a “compassionate conservative” in order to dispel this widely held view of conservatives. Evangelical conservatives (generally) tend to view such harsh measures as, in fact, compassionate. If strong medicine helps the individual to avoid sin and helps the nation avoid the judgment of God, the medicine becomes justified.
Generally, evangelical progressives note that freewill and personal accountability are important but not sufficient to explain social sin and its consequences. Like Lincoln, it is naïve and insufficient to simply expect people individually to stop sinning because the legality of some sin allows it to continue in a way that erodes at the moral health of the nation. To progressives, sinful people create sinful institutions and laws which embed sin in their very practices. Thus, one can experience the negative consequences of sin, can suffer adversely from its social, physical, psychological or spiritual effects and never have actually performed the sin. Thus, as the prophet Isaiah records, God declares the robbing of social justice to the poor and needy not the result of their own sin but from the institutions and laws of the powerful developed to protect their positions of power and privilege.
The result of this institutionalized sin is twofold. First, as sin becomes normal (i.e., legal) to the point where a person can engage in sin without seeing it as sin. In many cases, slavery being an example, the church may actually defend the sinful institution and use Scripture to defend it. In practice this can produce institutions and policies in economics, education, health care, environmental stewardship, military spending, etc. which may be treated as value neutral by conservatives (despite the claims of their worldview theology) but which, in fact, are spiritually and morally imbued. For progressives the amount spend on the military, how resources are allocated, who receives health care (and how much) are questions that demonstrate the spiritual heart and soul of a nation.
Second, people can be effected by sin without engaging in the practice of the sin themselves. For example, blacks in apartheid South Africa were subject to social, economic, political, and educational injustices (to name a few) solely because they were black. Whites, on the other hand, were awarded benefits in all of these areas (and many others) simply upon the basis of being white. Neither group had to actively engage in the sin of racism to experience these effects. Simply, they experienced benefit or injustice by the social institutions of a society that were designed to protect power and privilege at the expense of another group.
As a result, for evangelical progressives, not only must individual sin be dealt with but there must also be active consideration and addressing of sin embedded into the institutions and practices of the society. For progressive evangelicals all aspects of society, from personal conduct to social policy are moral issues. The family budget and the federal budget all show the spiritual priorities of those who establish that budget—and the departure of either from the priorities of God is of moral concern and in need of being addressed. For the nation, just as it is with the individual, “where your treasure is, there will your heart also be” (Mt. 6:21).
Monday, July 7, 2008
A Biblical View from the Left?
In March of 2008 I attended a dinner for faculty members of Cedarville University. The featured speaker that evening was Dr. Mark Caleb Smith, Director of the Center for Political Studies at Cedarville. In the Q & A time that followed a colleague, noting polls indicating that younger evangelicals are not as likely to be solidly Republican, asked Smith if he thought that this represented a growing trend among evangelical college students. Smith’s reply, and admittedly I am paraphrasing, was no because college students do not represent a consistent voting group.
While I cannot know for sure, the question of my colleague may well have been based in, what God’s Politics author and Sojourner’s magazine editor-in-chief Jim Wallis notes is a growing interest among younger evangelicals to political issues beyond abortion and same-sex marriage. Noting that God is neither a Republican or a Democrat, Wallis believes that younger evangelicals are increasingly attempting to apply the tenets of their faith to issues such as poverty, environmental concerns, and social justice issues such as fair trade, wages, and health care (to name just a few). As younger evangelicals begin to consider these issues as biblical concerns they are comparing the stances of the two major parties in the U.S. and increasing numbers are attracted to the positions of the Democrats.
While it may be true that college students, evangelical ones included, may not vote as faithfully as those who have graduated, I respectfully disagree with Smith and believe that the affinity of younger evangelicals to more progressive responses to social issues DOES represent a growing trend. It is a trend which older evangelicals, long-time supporters of the GOP (aka “God’s Own Party” at least in their minds), may find difficult to accept. What may be even more difficult for life-long evangelical Republicans is that they may well have violated that age-old adage, “be careful what you wish for. . . . you may get.”
I began in Christian education in the early 1980s. As a high school and middle school teacher, youth group worker, and higher educator, the emphasis of evangelical education has been on biblical integration and the application of the truth of Scripture to every aspect of life. This emphasis has been well founded. Throughout the 20th century the evangelical academy had seceded many disciplines to non-biblical thinking, areas which represented legitimate expressions of Christian concern. The result was that the thinking of many believers was dualistic, where biblical principles directed thinking in some aspects of life while in other areas the thinking (and behavior) of believers was not much different than non-believers. Noting that “all truth is God’s truth,” evangelical scholars and educators were challenged by leaders of the Church to prepare future leaders to think biblically, to develop in students a biblical worldview that would encompass and direct their thinking in every aspect of life.
Evangelicals schools, colleges, and universities responded by making biblical integration and worldview training their number one priority. During this time the Reagan revolution and conservative social agenda throughout the late 20th and early 21st century of most evangelicals tended to be centered on the issues of abortion and same-sex marriage. Republicans generally supported banning (or limiting) abortions and maintaining that same-sex unions should be illegal. These positions were warmly received by most evangelical voters while the generally pro-choice and more tolerant views of the Democrats were considered anathema. For some evangelicals, to vote Democrat was such a direct contradiction to the Bible that one could not be considered both a Christian and a Democrat. Yet, despite the conservative political climate of most white evangelical churches, a slow but noticeable change seems to have occurred. In proclaiming that all truth is God’s truth and that the principles of the Bible apply to all areas of human concern, a growing number of bright students noticed that all areas must mean ALL areas. That to limit the extent of evangelical participation in politics to such single-issue concerns as abortion or same-sex marriage violated the very principles that they had been taught to think from.
Does a federal budget that spends over a third of its dollars on the military and more than the next fifteen nations of the world combined represent a biblical budget? Does using only market-based models to determine human worth in terms of wages and benefits violate the image of God and the intrinsic value of human work? Do stewardship concerns and the biblical mandate to “cultivate and to keep” (Gen. 2:15) require government regulation of a consumer–based market economy? If biblical principles extend to every aspect of life than, increasingly, many evangelicals have begun to see these issues as important. As many evangelicals have looked for legitimate political expression on these issues many have found that the more progressive stances of the Democratic Party (and, at times, the Green Party) represent more biblical responses to these issues than the GOP.
This does not mean, in my opinion, that younger evangelicals will suddenly represent a monolithic voting block for the left similar to the right-wing tendencies of their parents and teachers. The Reagan Revolution that began 30 years ago has been characterized by a religious faith in the power of markets as a perfect mechanism (for some God’s created mechanism) for the just distribution of goods and services. The conservative, free-market trinity of privatization, deregulation, and union-busting has, for many, been combined with the divine Trinity to such an extent that to question the former is to deny the latter. For many the ideological monopoly of Chicago-school capitalism with evangelical Christianity makes voting Republican the only game in town. Yet, for a growing number of young people, the ensuing results of neo-liberal capitalism—growing unemployment, environmental exploitation, growing discrepancies between rich and poor, increasingly limited access to social and educational resources, etc.—have called the union of Milton Friedman and Jesus Christ into question.
The Left Pew is a blog dedicated to continuing a growing dialogue to the question—can the biblical worldview be extended to social issues in ways that question the cultural accommodations that many Christians have made to the mandates of Scripture? These cultural accommodations represent compromises by the very people that most seek to preserve the integrity of the Bible and its principles—the church. While I will not suggest that progressivism is the ONLY biblical answer to growing number of social issues coming to the attention of the church, I will suggest that the conservative monopoly on evangelical thinking has limited the dialogue, polarized many believers and prevented the church from considering alternative responses which are more biblically consistent and would serve to extend the influence and ministry of the church to a watching world.
While I cannot know for sure, the question of my colleague may well have been based in, what God’s Politics author and Sojourner’s magazine editor-in-chief Jim Wallis notes is a growing interest among younger evangelicals to political issues beyond abortion and same-sex marriage. Noting that God is neither a Republican or a Democrat, Wallis believes that younger evangelicals are increasingly attempting to apply the tenets of their faith to issues such as poverty, environmental concerns, and social justice issues such as fair trade, wages, and health care (to name just a few). As younger evangelicals begin to consider these issues as biblical concerns they are comparing the stances of the two major parties in the U.S. and increasing numbers are attracted to the positions of the Democrats.
While it may be true that college students, evangelical ones included, may not vote as faithfully as those who have graduated, I respectfully disagree with Smith and believe that the affinity of younger evangelicals to more progressive responses to social issues DOES represent a growing trend. It is a trend which older evangelicals, long-time supporters of the GOP (aka “God’s Own Party” at least in their minds), may find difficult to accept. What may be even more difficult for life-long evangelical Republicans is that they may well have violated that age-old adage, “be careful what you wish for. . . . you may get.”
I began in Christian education in the early 1980s. As a high school and middle school teacher, youth group worker, and higher educator, the emphasis of evangelical education has been on biblical integration and the application of the truth of Scripture to every aspect of life. This emphasis has been well founded. Throughout the 20th century the evangelical academy had seceded many disciplines to non-biblical thinking, areas which represented legitimate expressions of Christian concern. The result was that the thinking of many believers was dualistic, where biblical principles directed thinking in some aspects of life while in other areas the thinking (and behavior) of believers was not much different than non-believers. Noting that “all truth is God’s truth,” evangelical scholars and educators were challenged by leaders of the Church to prepare future leaders to think biblically, to develop in students a biblical worldview that would encompass and direct their thinking in every aspect of life.
Evangelicals schools, colleges, and universities responded by making biblical integration and worldview training their number one priority. During this time the Reagan revolution and conservative social agenda throughout the late 20th and early 21st century of most evangelicals tended to be centered on the issues of abortion and same-sex marriage. Republicans generally supported banning (or limiting) abortions and maintaining that same-sex unions should be illegal. These positions were warmly received by most evangelical voters while the generally pro-choice and more tolerant views of the Democrats were considered anathema. For some evangelicals, to vote Democrat was such a direct contradiction to the Bible that one could not be considered both a Christian and a Democrat. Yet, despite the conservative political climate of most white evangelical churches, a slow but noticeable change seems to have occurred. In proclaiming that all truth is God’s truth and that the principles of the Bible apply to all areas of human concern, a growing number of bright students noticed that all areas must mean ALL areas. That to limit the extent of evangelical participation in politics to such single-issue concerns as abortion or same-sex marriage violated the very principles that they had been taught to think from.
Does a federal budget that spends over a third of its dollars on the military and more than the next fifteen nations of the world combined represent a biblical budget? Does using only market-based models to determine human worth in terms of wages and benefits violate the image of God and the intrinsic value of human work? Do stewardship concerns and the biblical mandate to “cultivate and to keep” (Gen. 2:15) require government regulation of a consumer–based market economy? If biblical principles extend to every aspect of life than, increasingly, many evangelicals have begun to see these issues as important. As many evangelicals have looked for legitimate political expression on these issues many have found that the more progressive stances of the Democratic Party (and, at times, the Green Party) represent more biblical responses to these issues than the GOP.
This does not mean, in my opinion, that younger evangelicals will suddenly represent a monolithic voting block for the left similar to the right-wing tendencies of their parents and teachers. The Reagan Revolution that began 30 years ago has been characterized by a religious faith in the power of markets as a perfect mechanism (for some God’s created mechanism) for the just distribution of goods and services. The conservative, free-market trinity of privatization, deregulation, and union-busting has, for many, been combined with the divine Trinity to such an extent that to question the former is to deny the latter. For many the ideological monopoly of Chicago-school capitalism with evangelical Christianity makes voting Republican the only game in town. Yet, for a growing number of young people, the ensuing results of neo-liberal capitalism—growing unemployment, environmental exploitation, growing discrepancies between rich and poor, increasingly limited access to social and educational resources, etc.—have called the union of Milton Friedman and Jesus Christ into question.
The Left Pew is a blog dedicated to continuing a growing dialogue to the question—can the biblical worldview be extended to social issues in ways that question the cultural accommodations that many Christians have made to the mandates of Scripture? These cultural accommodations represent compromises by the very people that most seek to preserve the integrity of the Bible and its principles—the church. While I will not suggest that progressivism is the ONLY biblical answer to growing number of social issues coming to the attention of the church, I will suggest that the conservative monopoly on evangelical thinking has limited the dialogue, polarized many believers and prevented the church from considering alternative responses which are more biblically consistent and would serve to extend the influence and ministry of the church to a watching world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
