07.26.05
Posted in faith, politics at 10:33 am by
NOTE: In NO WAY is this piece intended to reflect ALL the rhetoric found on the Christian Alliance for Progress site. I’m sure much of it, if not most of it, is quite fine and truthful rhetoric.
I’m taking a short break from my ‘christ-haunted life’ series to bring up an issue that I glossed over yesterday. It has to do with the ‘Christian Alliance for Progress‘ (CAFP). Public Theologian and I have been sharing some debate about the nature of the alliance and I thought it worth a clarifying post.
Essentially, I offer a bit of soft criticism of the CAFP, for not necesarily being what I percieve to be completely honest in their rhetoric toward and about conservatives. I feel that the CAFP sometimes engages rhetorical tactics similar to what much of the beligerent religious right does.
Let me say, though, at the outset, I am a progressive, a liberal, a member of the reality-based community (though that’s quite a loaded term, too), and I’m a Christian. I suppose you could say I’m a member of the religious left. I agree with the politics of the CAFP, what I disagree with are their methods.
Here’s what I mean: the religious right (left purposely undefined) looks to the left for an adversary. They portray the left as ‘godless infidels’ who thrive on killing babies, wastefully burning the money of tax-payers, robbing from the average American in order to fund the laziness of a few, and encouraging wonton sexuality and orgies and the like. And, like CAFP, I think this sucks. It’s patently untrue, and in most cases harmful.
Oh, yes, the religious right has one key advantage that a member of the ‘religious left’ doesn’t. They’re the loud opinion when it comes to the way Christianity is popularly understood. (I refrain from saying the majority opinion, because there are a lot of Christians–probably even most Christians–who DON’T march behind the likes of Falwell, Dobson, or Robertson in lockstep.)
Unfortunately, I think that CAFP has in some ways begun participating in the same flame-throwing that the religious right has a patent on. The religious left chooses the right as an adversary. The right are portrayed as the ‘televangelists’ who hate gays, women, and minorities, who couldn’t give two shits about compassion, who are more interested in using the poor as a trampoline for their own wealth. And frankly, this is mostly untrue. (And, damn, is it ever hard to admit that!)
Again, though, as it is with spectra, there are a few leaders and a few folks who follow the leaders of the left (thought those leaders images aren’t as instantiated as those on the right) but the vast majority of Christians–conservativish…liberalish–don’t follow in lockstep behind those leaders either.
My premise is this: I just can’t imagine it’s particularly helpful to frame folks in the same light that we (progressives) have been so offended by in the past. It seems to me that this could only add fuel to the fire–a fire that I certainly can’t see as a purifying one for the Kingdom of God.
I also think that fundamentally the CAFP is a necessary voice. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t wish for the CAFP to go away, or anything of that nature. I would just hope for them to rise above the Rove-ian rhetoric of Christian conservatism and Christian liberalism. Clearly stated views are one thing, but demonizing the ‘other side’ is something entirely different. When we demonize others, we don’t proclaim the truth. And, an organization that doesn’t proclaim the truth doesn’t bring about the Kingdom of God.
I understand the hurt and pain caused by fundamentalism for years. I’ve witnessed it and I’ve written about it for some time now. However, I simply cannot imagine that rhetoric that polarizes people, Christians, apart is in any way helpful to the Kingdom. As much as I hate to admit it, we probably need eachother–liberals and conservatives and the vast majority of everybody else somewhere in the middle.
I say this, let’s not just be the jokers to the right of the populous or the clowns to the left. Let’s model a rhetorical vision that’s true and honest and confessional. Let’s use rhetoric that glorifies God, not rhetoric that demonifies a few of his followers (even if we think they’re assholes.) (See, it’s hard for me, too.)
Yes, indeed, I’m hardly one to speak here. I’m far from perfect. I’ve misrepresented conservatives, many times, in fact. So, why listen to me? I don’t know. I’m just another ’screw-up’ that’s trying to make it through a muddied world. But, I have to believe that the God of grace would bless this grand idea. That a gracious God would help us all to live and speak a little more honestly if we open ourselves up to the option.
Permalink
Trackback URL »
http://www.badchristian.com/2005/07/26/progress/trackback/
Posted in faith, politics at 10:33 am by
NOTE: In NO WAY is this piece intended to reflect ALL the rhetoric found on the Christian Alliance for Progress site. I’m sure much of it, if not most of it, is quite fine and truthful rhetoric.
I’m taking a short break from my ‘christ-haunted life’ series to bring up an issue that I glossed over yesterday. It has to do with the ‘Christian Alliance for Progress‘ (CAFP). Public Theologian and I have been sharing some debate about the nature of the alliance and I thought it worth a clarifying post.
Essentially, I offer a bit of soft criticism of the CAFP, for not necesarily being what I percieve to be completely honest in their rhetoric toward and about conservatives. I feel that the CAFP sometimes engages rhetorical tactics similar to what much of the beligerent religious right does.
Let me say, though, at the outset, I am a progressive, a liberal, a member of the reality-based community (though that’s quite a loaded term, too), and I’m a Christian. I suppose you could say I’m a member of the religious left. I agree with the politics of the CAFP, what I disagree with are their methods.
Here’s what I mean: the religious right (left purposely undefined) looks to the left for an adversary. They portray the left as ‘godless infidels’ who thrive on killing babies, wastefully burning the money of tax-payers, robbing from the average American in order to fund the laziness of a few, and encouraging wonton sexuality and orgies and the like. And, like CAFP, I think this sucks. It’s patently untrue, and in most cases harmful.
Oh, yes, the religious right has one key advantage that a member of the ‘religious left’ doesn’t. They’re the loud opinion when it comes to the way Christianity is popularly understood. (I refrain from saying the majority opinion, because there are a lot of Christians–probably even most Christians–who DON’T march behind the likes of Falwell, Dobson, or Robertson in lockstep.)
Unfortunately, I think that CAFP has in some ways begun participating in the same flame-throwing that the religious right has a patent on. The religious left chooses the right as an adversary. The right are portrayed as the ‘televangelists’ who hate gays, women, and minorities, who couldn’t give two shits about compassion, who are more interested in using the poor as a trampoline for their own wealth. And frankly, this is mostly untrue. (And, damn, is it ever hard to admit that!)
Again, though, as it is with spectra, there are a few leaders and a few folks who follow the leaders of the left (thought those leaders images aren’t as instantiated as those on the right) but the vast majority of Christians–conservativish…liberalish–don’t follow in lockstep behind those leaders either.
My premise is this: I just can’t imagine it’s particularly helpful to frame folks in the same light that we (progressives) have been so offended by in the past. It seems to me that this could only add fuel to the fire–a fire that I certainly can’t see as a purifying one for the Kingdom of God.
I also think that fundamentally the CAFP is a necessary voice. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t wish for the CAFP to go away, or anything of that nature. I would just hope for them to rise above the Rove-ian rhetoric of Christian conservatism and Christian liberalism. Clearly stated views are one thing, but demonizing the ‘other side’ is something entirely different. When we demonize others, we don’t proclaim the truth. And, an organization that doesn’t proclaim the truth doesn’t bring about the Kingdom of God.
I understand the hurt and pain caused by fundamentalism for years. I’ve witnessed it and I’ve written about it for some time now. However, I simply cannot imagine that rhetoric that polarizes people, Christians, apart is in any way helpful to the Kingdom. As much as I hate to admit it, we probably need eachother–liberals and conservatives and the vast majority of everybody else somewhere in the middle.
I say this, let’s not just be the jokers to the right of the populous or the clowns to the left. Let’s model a rhetorical vision that’s true and honest and confessional. Let’s use rhetoric that glorifies God, not rhetoric that demonifies a few of his followers (even if we think they’re assholes.) (See, it’s hard for me, too.)
Yes, indeed, I’m hardly one to speak here. I’m far from perfect. I’ve misrepresented conservatives, many times, in fact. So, why listen to me? I don’t know. I’m just another ’screw-up’ that’s trying to make it through a muddied world. But, I have to believe that the God of grace would bless this grand idea. That a gracious God would help us all to live and speak a little more honestly if we open ourselves up to the option.
Permalink
Trackback URL »
http://www.badchristian.com/2005/07/26/progress/trackback/
lee eddy said,
July 26, 2005 at 12:51 pm
Brandon,
Bravo. I too am drawn to the Christian Left but see too much of the sins of the Christian RIght mirrored in reverse.
Something tells me it just isn’t the Jesus Way. He consorted with the righties and the lefties and saw in them something beyond political categories and then called them to a different politics AND a different method, a different Kingdom.
Thanks.
Lee
Josh said,
July 26, 2005 at 1:38 pm
Well said. You’re absolutely right.
Crap.
fuzzit said,
July 26, 2005 at 3:25 pm
Not that I am defending the “flaming”, I think people get tired of being misrepresented and fight fire with fire. That is part of what makes us imperfectly human. IMHO, the historical or real Jesus didn’t have a hand in politics/popular culture, it seems to me he condemned the status quo of the left and right, because he lived in the Kingdom already. And I believe living the Kingdom is something that no politician can do, while having so much power. The system is ultimately corrupt/corrupting.
Public Theologian said,
July 26, 2005 at 9:34 pm
Brandon–
When Jesus called his polemical opponents “white-washed tombs” and a “brood of vipers” was he engaging in a “confessional rhetoric”? Was he “demonizing” them? My point is that the way we are handling these matters is hardly unprecedented in the tradion and traces its roots back to the founder himself (see also Paul, John the Revelator, etc etc). Sometimse the occasion simply calls for strong words, and now is one of them.
If anyone has specific examples of statements that have been made on our site which are untrue I would be glad to know of them and would personally assure whoever comes forward with such information that it will be removed.
I do think that many on the religious right hate gay people. Jimmy Swaggart said he would kill one if he were ever propositioned. Jerry Falwell blamed them for 911. Exactly what kind of confessional rhetoric would one use to describe those statements?
And they do use the poor to their advantage. Have you seen the Falwell mansion? Have you not heard the “name it and claim it” theology that urges the poor to”seed” into the televangelist’s ministries so that God will give them what they want? Are you aware of the fianncial arrangemnts that Dobson has with Focus on the Family whereby he controls all the royalties for all of his products, which reap him millions in profits? (Contrast that with Billy Graham, whose Evangelistic Association gets all the royalties of his book sales and which pays him a modest annual salary.)
Again if one has evidence that false statements are being made one should provide it. Otherwise, one should not be accusing people of speaking untruthfully.
I am committed to nonviolence based on my understanding of the gospels, but that does not extend to using confrontational language to deal with things that are wrong. My concern is that too many progressives take the PACIFICism of the gospels and read it as PASSIVism, as in “Jesus wants me for a doormat, not a sunbeam.” We are in the kind of bind we are as a country precisely because of such a passive response by progressive people that ought to know better.
Regards,
PT
Brandon said,
July 26, 2005 at 10:00 pm
Okay, PT, now I’m pretty sure that you’re not understanding what I’m saying.
I haven’t inferred that progressives ‘passively’ allow the rhetoric of the religious right to walk all over us. Just like Jesus stood up for what’s right, we should, too.
You know, the more I think about this PT, I’m starting to wonder if you and I will ever really come to an understanding here. I just can’t imagine how you think I’m advocating passivism here. I’ve said that there’s and important place for the CAFP and making arguments for progressive Christianity.
I mean what do you want me to say, ‘It’s okay for progressive Christians to drag conservative Christianity through the mud just like they’ve done to us.’ That doesn’t seem very restorative to me.
Public Theologian said,
July 27, 2005 at 8:37 am
Brandon–
What I want you to do is to point out the places where what has been said is untrue, which is what you claimed was going on at the Alliance. That is a legitimate critique if it can be sustained.
What is not legitimate, in my view, is complaining about the rough and tumble of politics. That is what I hear you griping about. Present day politics certainly does not resemble a Quaker meeting. Getting involved in it publicly at a national level is thus not for everyone, particularly for persons who are conflict avoidant or who are unduly conflict-prone. But ne should extrapolate from this that because certain people by inclination or preference are ill-suited to the public airing of these matters that therefore those who do are somehow behavng in an unChristlike manner without providing specific instances.
I have no interest in “dragging conservative Christianity through the mud.” My own father is an evangelical pastor. Conservative Christians have fed and educated my children, put braces on their teeth and provided a roof over our heads–not once have I ever pastored a liberal congregation. Everything I have materially in this world has come from the tithes and offerings of conservative Christians, of which I am well aware and very grateful. So your implication that this is what the Alliance is trying to do is way off base. There is a world of difference betwen the leadership of the religious right and the people who follow them with varying levels of adherence.
Regards,
PT
Howie Luvzus said,
July 27, 2005 at 9:16 am
Man,
I know how you feel. I find myself ranting and then having to apologize for being un-Christian. I am passionate when it comes to Christians hurting others, but I’m not so sensitive when it comes to my own rhetoric toward the right. I think I’ll post something about this today. Thanks!
Brandon said,
July 27, 2005 at 9:40 am
PT,
When you say:
So your implication that this is what the Alliance is trying to do is way off base.
I think you’re misunderstanding me. I made an offhand comment about the CAFP. I made a note that I in NO WAY thought that the Alliance’s activities were ALL BAD. In fact, I overtly stated that the Alliance was a necessary and valuable voice in Christianity today.
What you seem to be arguing is that the Alliance is in every way above reproach.
I can understand why you’d be upset at my claims. Essentially, if I’m right, I’m calling the Alliance hypocritical. Frankly, they are. Of course, so am I. We all are. That’s life, we’re all hypocrites in one way or another. The goal then is to be open to hearing others critiques.
All I’m arguing is that the Alliance should pay more attention to it’s rhetoric. That’s it. And, frankly, I’m not all that concerned about organizations like the Alliance. I used them as an example because you made a point out of it. I’m just as concerned with MY rhetoric as I am with yours.
Confessional rhetoric–though you seem to think that using this term makes me a ‘pansy’–is all about admitting my shortcomings as a speaker and writer. It’s all about naming my slant for what it is.
If you can honestly say that you’re either not infering anywhere at the Alliance’s site that conservatives are not compassionate, caring individuals, nor are they particularly interested in justice for anyone but themselves, or you’re not saying that this is actually the way conservatives are–then I’m wrong. If the rhetoric doesn’t infer that, well, I made a mistake and I’m sorry.
I’m not convinced I’m wrong, though. There’s so many good things about the Alliance, PT. It’s just that you needn’t the rhetorical negation in order to be effective. The alliance is light-years ahead of folks like the ‘Christian Worldview Network’ or Falwell’s jokers. But we (progressives) still play the same sinful games. Is that just ‘hardball’ politics? Rough and tumble is the name of the game? Thing is, these politics, these views should be shared in a way radically transformed by the grace of Jesus Christ.
To me, a view shared in a way radically transformed G-d, has little to do with the view itself, and more to do with the manner in which it is communicated–with love, respect, and honesty.
Resident Atheist said,
July 27, 2005 at 11:35 am
I glanced briefly over the site, and I’m not sure I see any indication that conservatives are being handed a broad blanket condemnation for anything in particular. The tone is such that people uninvested in or uninformed about either side will likely be turned off, and it won’t necessarily help build bridges with conservative Christians, but at the same time, I don’t get the sense that that’s the point of the site; it’s to expose what are perceived as wrongdoings on the part of certain specific groups and leaders, as well as a (metaphorical) call to arms to those who believe similarly.
Now, if I understand your point, it’s that “transformed” dialogue will never be like this; it will always be concilatory. But I don’t have any clear idea what it means to share things in a way “radically transformed by the grace of Jesus Christ”, or how you would talk about (say) whitewashed tombs or broods of vipers with love, respect and honesty. If I’m parsing this correctly, you’re saying that the end goal of all political discourse ought to be peace and reconciliation; yet there are manifold examples, both in life and in the Biblical texts, where political discourse (e.g. God speaking of oppressive leaders in the prophets) is both polarizing and condemnatory (this is why prophets were so often mistreated), and reconciliation could only come about once justice was enacted. In the Greek world, it was difficult to be less conciliatory than “Woe unto you” because of the manifold connotations of “woe” (it’s a few shades harsher than “To hell with you”), yet the gospels have Jesus saying this every now and again to leaders behaving unjustly. Presumably Jesus remembered their humanity and loved them and so forth; it’s just not obvious from the way he talked about them: if we were reading a book about Aeneas or Odysseus instead, and they used that kind of language, we’d conclude that they hated those people upon whom they wished woe. So it is with all political conversation that attempts to redress perceived wrongs. The same words may be either hateful or loving, depending on the person, and it’s not enough to judge based on words alone.
Brandon said,
July 27, 2005 at 12:42 pm
In short, I don’t believe that the end ‘transformed’ goal of political discourse is consensus. It’s to treat the other side honestly so that discourse can occur without misrepresentation. The end goal is not consensus, it’s not accepting other’s viewpoints as necessarily true, the goal, to me, is in the process. It’s the process of rhetorically honest communication that in essence changes us.
That’s all. I hold Jesus to be the son of God, RA, thus I believe he’s got a bit more latitude to be running around saying ‘woe’ and calling folks white washed tombs.
David Dark really does a much better job talking about this than I, so if you’re interested I’d suggest his book!
Resident Atheist said,
July 27, 2005 at 3:18 pm
Oh, I never thought you meant that consensus was the goal, only living together peacefully insofar as it’s possible. I just missed part of what you meant about truthful rhetoric. Without agreeing or disagreeing, I’m still a little fuzzy on why CAPT is used as an example, though; is it because of the implicit call-to-arms rather than call-to-understanding mentality?
Brandon said,
July 27, 2005 at 5:02 pm
A good clarification, RA. Honestly, I only used the site in passing because it seemed a ‘marginally’ good example–certainly not a great one. It was expounded upon because PT and I began discussing it.
I suppose an example of what I mean about truthful rhetoric might be helpful at this point. I just grabbed this snippet off the site and thus I haven’t reflected upon it all that much–yet it seemed a good exemplar (found here):
Jesus Taught Compassion, Responsibility, and Equality. Following His Call, We Support Responsible, Compassionate Programs That Are Genuinely Effective in Helping Prevent Unintended Pregnancy, An Outcome No Woman Wants.
Now, without getting into the issue of abortion at all, I’m not a big fan of the way this frames conservatives–much like the way I don’t like the way I’m framed either. The underlying assertion in the above quote is that (as I see it): If you love Jesus and support compassion, responsibility, and equality…if you follow Jesus’ call, you’ll necessarily oppose legislation criminalizing abortion.
This just doesn’t leave a Christ pursuing conservative much ground to stand on!
bill said,
July 27, 2005 at 7:53 pm
Brandon,
I agree with your post. Furthermore, your exchange with PT proves your point very well, IMO. Also, the positions posited by PT confirm my own impression of the CAFP. And that is that they are merely another political group using Christianity for political purposes. And that makes me pissed.
Just as I think you are saying, I welcome some balance to the Falwell, Robertson and Dobson party. My prediction however, is that the CAFP is at least a decade late and will mostly succeed in adding ballast to a sinking boat as the public gets sicker and sicker of all this religio-political bullshit.
The Democrat party should have admitted that some of their members actually believe in God in the 1980s. Then they wouldn’t be in the fix that left them nothing useful to say to Christian Democrats these past twenty years. Now they want to jump on the band wagon as it’s on its way out of town.
What we really need is a couple of new political parties so we can chuck these two who work together in Washington to waste our money and ensure each other incumbency, while pretending to disagree on the campaign trail by arguing over how best to waste our money.
IMO, these groups like Dobson’s Focus on Family Action and the CAFP are merely business people who gather votes to sell to incumbents. They find some issues that resonate with voters. Then they go out and stir up anger. Then they deliver votes. Then they demand special treatment and favors in return. Not very Christ like.
bill
Anthony Doling said,
July 27, 2005 at 11:00 pm
First time on your site. Really enjoyed your comments and perspective. I’ll tune back in.
Anthony Doling said,
July 27, 2005 at 11:11 pm
Wow, reading Public Theologian’s comments really made me want to check out the CAFP site (never heard of it before - Christian politics is really disheartening to me). I liked the gist of things, but was a little surprised (not really, this is pretty standard stuff for Chrisitan political extremists on either side of the fence) by the use of the term “unchristian” (really, they use this word) to describe efforts to end legal abortion in America. What is going on here??????!!!!!! Can anyone disagree with anything anymore without having their faith called into question?
Brandon, thanks again for your posting and what seems to be a genuine and humble effort to look at how we can fight some of this biased rhetoric (Biblical swordfighting) on both sides of modern American politics.
Brandon said,
July 27, 2005 at 11:14 pm
Thanks, Anthony and Bill. Your encouragement found a heart that needed encouragement.
Xpatriated Texan said,
July 28, 2005 at 2:19 pm
Hey Brandon,
I always appreciate your insight and I think you are right to be concerned about the Christian Left devolving to the tactics of the Religious Right. It is, after all, very tempting to act childish and return evil for evil.
But we are not called to act that way, are we?
I looked deep into my heart before I signed up with the Christian Alliance and took on the task of state organizer. I do not want to become the mirror image of my “enemies”. I was all but physically chased out of more than one church for my liberal views. I want to always be the last one that attempts to do that for a conservative person in the pew - and to be the first one to tell my brethren to put down their rocks of anger.
Personally, I do not see the rhetoric on our side as being on the same level as the Right’s. The Christian Alliance was singled out by Rev. Falwell recently and told point blank that we simply are not Christians. I’m sure that sounds familiar to you. Our response was not to say that the Rev. is the anti-Christ, but rather to send him letters simply stating that we are brothers in Christ and will pray for him - and that he does a dis-service in the church to focus on the mote in our eye while ignoring the beam in his own.
If the Christian Progressive movement is to remain both on its feet and on its knees, it desperately needs men like yourself who will hold us to a higher standard. It is too easy to focus on the fight and forget all else.
Thanks for being what we need and having the courage to speak up.
XT
Brandon said,
July 28, 2005 at 2:51 pm
Thanks, XT.
By the way, I wholeheartedly agree with you that the rhetoric on the part of the CAFP is not nearly as dastardly as that you’ll find of Falwell followers.
catholic_girl said,
July 29, 2005 at 11:08 am
Brandon, without commenting specifically on the CAFP, I think we’re on the same page. I came to a similar conclusion this week. It seems like (for me, at least) it’s easy to cross that line between righteous anger and anger for anger’s sake.
It’s too bad anger can be so fun…
Allison said,
July 29, 2005 at 2:51 pm
Wow…I’m behind by a few days, and this post fits perfectly with a conversation I just had with a friend (the one who’s the subject of an earlier post on Boundaries on my blog).
During this past election year, what irritated/frustrated me the absolute most was the focus each candidate had on demonizing the other. The end result? Air-time that could have been used to better clarify and deliver a message of what the candidate is all about was wasted. What am I about? I’m not HIM! (This was true on both sides — annoying, since I would have loved to see Kerry present more of a position on anything.)
The same is true in the right-left “battle” of Christianity. Each side is so focused on saying what they’re NOT that they miss the opportunity to say what they DO represent.
Back to my friend. I’ve been trying to explain to him the concept that a healthy response when someone maligns him is not to malign that person in return.
Just live. Don’t try to tell people who you are. Don’t tell people how you want to be seen. (If it isn’t true, they’ll see straight through it anyway!) Better to spend your energy on BEING THE PERSON that you’d like them to see. If you’re consistent and YOU, it’ll show through in time.
Slublog said,
August 1, 2005 at 1:25 pm
I’m a mostly-conservative Christian who would probably disagree with you on some policy issues. I am not a big fan, though, of those on the right who use Christ as a bludgeon to prove their political points.
For that reason, I agreed completely with this post. People who share a faith in Christ, whether they be on the right or the left, should not regard one another as enemies.
I stumbled across this blog while searching for opinions on street preaching (loved your thoughts on that) and like what I see. I’ll keep visiting.
vincent said,
December 15, 2005 at 11:07 am
Ummm wow this alliance is really close, but by calling abortion anything but murder they are far from the truth. Sad really because I agree with alot of their premises - it seems that unforunaltley they will use christainity for their own aims as much as the right has - Sincerly, Vincent.