11.28.05
Posted in faith, politics at 2:29 pm by brandon
I know it’s a surprise, but I got to thinking about faith and politics this weekend. It all started as I was reading Donald Miller’s Blue Like Jazz. My nitpicking here notwithstanding, I love this book (so far.) Anyway, the phrase that got me thinking here was Miller’s assertion (and I’m paraphrasing here) that Jesus knew not to mix politics with spirituality, it’s a shame that Christians don’t typically follow suit. (I think he asserts this in the Ren Fayre chapter for those of you who’ve read the entirity of the book.)
Now, I’ll admit, I haven’t really read ALL of the book. So, if somewhere else, Miller clarifies this thought, my apologies. However, I’m not so sure that I agree that Christians shouldn’t mix politics with spirituality.
Here’s my thinking: if we’re spiritual (meaning, of the spirit) shouldn’t that affect the whole of our being? Put differently, shouldn’t we be spiritual kingdom builders in all we do? Doesn’t faith necessarily coincide with politics? Isn’t that an essential part of faith that it comes into contact with life–all of life, even?
I think I understand what Miller was REALLY talking about, of course. He was making, in my view, a point about how Christian spirituality often gets prostituted, whoreing itself out for the aims of political conservatism. However, I don’t think that Christians are to separate their politics from their faith. Because, frankly, politics matter.
It’s my contention that it’s not the mixing of politics and religion that is the problem with Christianity. The problem is the fact that the brand of religion that most often gets mixed with politics isn’t one that recognizes God, Jehovah, YHWH, or however you choose to refer to her as God. Rather the so called “Christian” religion that’s mixed with politics that is problematic is one that worships our Wal-Mart temples, prays to our Barnes & Nobles, and humbles itself in the sight of Starbucks.
It’s not the mixing of religion and politics that’s the problem. The problem is the wholesale confusion of US-ian economics with spirituality.
So, how’s that for a can of worms.
Permalink
Trackback URL »
http://www.badchristian.com/2005/11/28/and_all_that_jazz/trackback/
Posted in faith, politics at 2:29 pm by brandon
I know it’s a surprise, but I got to thinking about faith and politics this weekend. It all started as I was reading Donald Miller’s Blue Like Jazz. My nitpicking here notwithstanding, I love this book (so far.) Anyway, the phrase that got me thinking here was Miller’s assertion (and I’m paraphrasing here) that Jesus knew not to mix politics with spirituality, it’s a shame that Christians don’t typically follow suit. (I think he asserts this in the Ren Fayre chapter for those of you who’ve read the entirity of the book.)
Now, I’ll admit, I haven’t really read ALL of the book. So, if somewhere else, Miller clarifies this thought, my apologies. However, I’m not so sure that I agree that Christians shouldn’t mix politics with spirituality.
Here’s my thinking: if we’re spiritual (meaning, of the spirit) shouldn’t that affect the whole of our being? Put differently, shouldn’t we be spiritual kingdom builders in all we do? Doesn’t faith necessarily coincide with politics? Isn’t that an essential part of faith that it comes into contact with life–all of life, even?
I think I understand what Miller was REALLY talking about, of course. He was making, in my view, a point about how Christian spirituality often gets prostituted, whoreing itself out for the aims of political conservatism. However, I don’t think that Christians are to separate their politics from their faith. Because, frankly, politics matter.
It’s my contention that it’s not the mixing of politics and religion that is the problem with Christianity. The problem is the fact that the brand of religion that most often gets mixed with politics isn’t one that recognizes God, Jehovah, YHWH, or however you choose to refer to her as God. Rather the so called “Christian” religion that’s mixed with politics that is problematic is one that worships our Wal-Mart temples, prays to our Barnes & Nobles, and humbles itself in the sight of Starbucks.
It’s not the mixing of religion and politics that’s the problem. The problem is the wholesale confusion of US-ian economics with spirituality.
So, how’s that for a can of worms.
Permalink
Trackback URL »
http://www.badchristian.com/2005/11/28/and_all_that_jazz/trackback/
jf said,
November 28, 2005 at 6:01 pm
Hey Brandon, I agree with you and oddly enough I started reading the same book on Saturday and I’m on page 129, maybe the same as you. But the part that stood out so far was when Don referred to politicians and presidents raping the Holy Book or Christianity for just what they wanted from it. I won’t go in depth incase you didn’t read that part yet.
JF
Brandon said,
November 28, 2005 at 6:02 pm
Okay, I think we’re rolling everybody. Sorry about the comments, etc. Things have been a bit messed up of late. Please, do comment again, I hope my blog will suck less in the near future!
eric l. said,
November 28, 2005 at 6:11 pm
Hey Brandon,
It’s been awhile since i’ve cruised on by for your insights. Blue Like Jazz is one of those books i’ve held but never got around to actually reading it even though i keep hearing people talking about it.
In regards to politics and faith, I agree that they do have a place together. It’s easy to say that God is neither a democrat nor a republican but the reality is that He is concerned about justice.
At the recent CCDA Conference in Indianapolis, Ray Bakke told a story (paraphrased here) about a series of cases brought before a judge where he continually sided against the poor and in favor of the wealthy. A pastor stood up in protest and asked, ‘Your honor, we have been sitting here case after case watching you rule in favor of the rich and denying the poor. Where is the justice in this court?’ The judge responded, ‘That is your error. You think that this is a court of justice, but it’s not. This is a court of law. If you want justice, change the law.’
I agree with you that we are to be spiritual Kingdom builders - His not ours. I think that some Christians mistakenly think that the Kingdom is the Church and so they focus on their own local church efforts (their local kingdom). Rather, i think that the Church is only a part of His Kingdom and that God’s Kingdom includes His reign in all parts of our community. I also think He’s especially moving in places where the Church isn’t and so they miss out on being a part of what He’s doing there - perhaps their arrogance and/or ignorance.
You’re right, politics matter because it effects lives. Churchians need to think outside their box.
Eric
Benjamin said,
November 28, 2005 at 6:44 pm
Religion without politics would be pretty fucking boring, IMHO, and Yoder’s as well….
Jacke said,
November 28, 2005 at 7:38 pm
Brandon writes:
“Christian spirituality often gets prostituted, whoreing itself out for the aims of political conservatism.”
That’s nice, Brandon, very loving, tolerant and graceful of you. Oh, sorry, I forgot, love, tolerance and grace only apply to non-politically conservative pundits, ’scuze me.
Brandon said,
November 28, 2005 at 8:33 pm
Jacke,
1. Stop using smiley faces when you make cutting remarks, they just make you look like a smug jackass.
2. Sorry if you took issue with my statement. The truth’s a bitch ain’t it.
3. If I’m supposed to be tolerant of the gospel being whored out on account of something it ain’t, fuck tolerance.
4. If you can seriously look at the way religion is used in American culture now-a-days and tell me that you aren’t disgusted, I think you need to re-evaluate the lens through which you look at faith and politics.
I’ve more thoughts on your comment, Jacke, but I’m curious for others to weigh in.
Brandon said,
November 28, 2005 at 8:39 pm
Eric, I love this. I think you’ve got something in your notion that our Kingdom building is often too much a local “church” effort when it should be a world effort. Even bigger than the Church (global) but as big as all of creation.
Jacke said,
November 28, 2005 at 9:42 pm
You seem to be a mite touchy tonight, Brandon. Your perception of my smiley faces and intent are your business, I suppose, but I know what my own intent was and if you think I’m just a smug jackass you can kiss my smugness goodbye.
I enjoyed it while it lasted, thought it was going to be different than it was but like you said:
“fuck tolerance”
Bye.
Brandon said,
November 28, 2005 at 10:19 pm
So, let me get this straight, Jacke.
You’re allowed to come around, call people to task, nail them to the wall. But when someone does it to you, you’re going to turn tail and head on out?
Right. I’m sure this’ll serve to further confirm your feeling that progressive Christianity is all about a bunch of hippy yahoos worshipping liberalism, but you know what, I can’t help that.
I said that your smiley faces make you when you leave a cutting remark make you look like a smug jackass. I said not to use them. It was a suggestion, not an assertion that you were smug, nor a jackass. Of course, with your last comment you’ve sort of taken the work out of confirming that last bit.
Frankly, I’m sad to see you leave. But, I can’t say that I’ll miss the tone with which you approach ‘dialogue’. You’re welcome to stay around, of course, but if you do you’d probably be well served to be a bit less presumptuous that I’m labeling ALL conservatives something.
Oh, and about you being the tolerant one, this is what you wrote to kick off this little she-bang:
So, Jacke, if you must leave, you must. I certainly understand, but we needn’t a
‘power’ exit on your behalf.
Farewell, and pop in anytime.
Shteevie said,
November 29, 2005 at 1:00 am
I let my Christianity inform the way I vote. Up here in Canada, I try to support the Christian Heritage Party whenever I can.
Yee-haw!!!
Steve said,
November 29, 2005 at 1:00 am
Brandon,
While I understand your frustrations, I think that you need to be a bit more gracious in approaching others. I know that Jacke’s comments rankled. They made my hackles rise, but this is not a reason to delve into anything approaching an ad hominum attack. That goes for Jacke as well.
I think that Brandon very carefully qualified his statement, “fuck tolerance.” He was addressing a specific use of tolerance in a particular situation.
I happen to think that tolerance should only extend so far in this case. I’m sure that Jacke agrees that there are places where stands must be made. Can’t we have a discussion about the location of these bastions without resorting to name calling. It makes everyone involved appear to tend toward the definition of “jackass”?
Steve J said,
November 29, 2005 at 4:23 am
I’m with my namesake on this.
I love the fact that people disagree here. If I wanted to listen to everybody say what I wanted to hear I’d tell people what to say in the first place.
Jacke I hope you stay around, not to be the whipping post but to provide an alternative point of view. However we could All do with a little more care for other’s feelings, we’re not here to get personal.
Back to the original post I feel happier with spirituality being able to apply pressure to government. The Church needs to govern itself so no one group can drag it off down a particular alley. Whereas government has to do what is as best as possible for people of all creeds. We as Christians should be doing our part to influence politics for the better. I don’t think that necessarily means to run for president though.
And Brandon…….you did ask for a can of worms
Peace
Brandon said,
November 29, 2005 at 7:06 am
Steve,
I also quite carefully qualified the term jackass. Never did I say that Jacke was a jackass. Merely, I asserted that her use of smiley faces after a cutting remark made her appear to be smug and manipulative. If she was not trying to be so, it seems only fair to let her know how she’s coming off.
It turned out, she seemed to know, but not really care.
dorsey said,
November 29, 2005 at 10:35 am
(For my 2 cents, the smug jackass had it coming)…
My political perspective MUST be influenced by my faith, otherwise, my faith is insufficient. And I tend to think it’s the way we approach this integration (on all sides) that has carved out the great chasm in the current theo-political rampage.
I agree that we should be spiritual kingdom builders. But Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world…” Why do we persist in thinking that wielding the church like a political hammer will accomplish anything but to drive people away from Christ? Christianity has become just another political party.
Make no mistake, power—not greater faith—is the goal of this struggle. A politician is a politician, whether left or right. Popes of old justified manipulating political struggles by saying “What’s good for me is good for the church, and the good of the church is, of course, God’s will.” Sound familiar? Robertson, Dobson, Falwell, et al, use their followings to get what they want. They claim—perhaps even believe—that controlling external behaviors is what God is really after. Well Jesus talked about that. He said to wash the inside of the cup, then the outside will become clean.
The church needs to offer Christ instead of christianity. The church needs to follow His example of service, and understand that the greatest power lies in the choice to not pursue power. When Christians get off their high horses and get their hands dirty in service to others, that’s when hearts will change, and when the inside is clean, the outside will be clean too.
Brandon said,
November 29, 2005 at 10:44 am
Couldn’t agree more, Dorsey.
And, that part of Blue Like Jazz, admittedly, struck home too. The part where Miller asserts that if we REALLY want to confront social injustice, we first need to look in the mirror and confront the sin nature of the person staring back at each one of us.
The Crooked Saint said,
November 29, 2005 at 11:08 am
A couple years ago, I started the Huge Awesome League of Informed People (www.halip.org) to think through this very thing. A lot of great dialogue happened…we even made up punk rock pins to wear and were in the process of starting an actual zine. People from all points of view contributed to the discussion, but the slant was definitely left of center…at least on issues of the poor etc. Eventually, things petered out (but if you check the archives, you’ll read some great stuff)
I think what bothered me about myself was I began to use my Bible to promote my politics. I think the conservative movement is way more in the public eye on this sort of thing, but I know I’ve been guilty of it as well. I became so involved with justifying my position by use of Scripture that I forgot to let Scripture keep molding me.
I stepped back a bit, and while I still fall on the left, I learned an important lesson. I think we start as people of faith. We apply that to everything including politics…but we can’t forget the starting point. If we do, then we are resounding gongs.
I think the left, or at least the Democrats are trying to back pedal a bit and say “yeah, we’re christians too!” but when I see Michael Moore quoting Scripture and exegeting it all wrong, I have to remind myself that Scripture remains a non-political tool to form my much needed politics.
Jacke said,
November 29, 2005 at 12:07 pm
Steve writes:
“I happen to think that tolerance should only extend so far in this case. I’m sure that Jacke agrees that there are places where stands must be made. Can’t we have a discussion about the location of these bastions without resorting to name calling.”
Ironically, before this hot-headed exchange between Brandon and I, I had just written an entry on my own blog titled “Progressive Christians are Right,” because I do believe that Progressive Christians goals are worthy goals, I just believe that Conservative Christians goals are worthy, too.
I’m sure, though unintentionally, I do come across as smug at times, but I’ll ask you, do any of you ever consider that you or others of the same political bend as the majority here also come across as smug, or even condescending at times, to me, but that possibly you don’t recognize it because you happen to agree with each other?
My original remark was not made in anger, it was not intended to be smug but I do feel, and have even written a blog entry of my own about it, that Progressive Christians have an attitude that their “causes” are holier than Conservative Christian “causes” and that they perceive, unfairly, that Conservatives are judging PEOPLE as opposed to hating sin, which is rampant in our world, just as God calls us to do. I don’t reserve my hatred of sin only for others or only for Progressives, I reserve it for my own sin and the sin of Conservatives, as well. The title of that blog entry was simply “A Progressive Christian Motto? Judge Not Lest we Judge you for Judging,” that is how it feels.
This is how I wish it would feel:
We are all a part of the Body of Christ. We all have a purpose within that body. Your purpose may be to promote the feeding of all the world’s hungry. My purpose might be to stop what I view as efforts toward implementing immoral laws of the land. Each of our purposes, if done for the right motives, are acts of servitude for God.
I had hoped that discussions could ensue among intelligent Christians regarding misunderstandings about motives of Conservative Christians in some of the stances they take. I had also hoped to learn what makes Progressive Christians “tick,” well, I have learned a lot about Progressive Christians and I feel that their causes, in some cases, are worthy causes and I try always to remember that we all form the Body of Christ.
It is unfortunate, that if I am honest and I give my true feelings and beliefs to this group of Christians, that rather than being listened to and considered I am instead considered as “smug” and an effort is made to judge me. Of course, being “smug” was never my intent. I reacted in anger last night when I saw Brandon’s reply, dang, it’s the pits being human, isn’t it? But I did want you all to understand that I do not view myself as a smug jackass and Brandon somehow seems to have gotten the impression, though I don’t know how, that I have admitted to being just that. I do not admit to being just that. I admit to trying, to the best of my ability, to share my thoughts and feelings which are decidedly Conservative, and even making the effort to do so as humbly as possible, of course, none of you have seen the painstaking process of editing my remarks that I have undergone before posting comments in this forum. It appears that no amount of effort that I can put into that will change the perception that I am smug, and frankly, I think that may have more to do with the fact that I just don’t agree with the majority of you, politically, and don’t back down, than anything else.
Now, I don’t know whether my plans are to continue to participate in commenting on this blog or not, but I do know that, if I do, I will continue to try my best to be as humble as I can possibly be while still being honest about how I feel and where I stand on any given issue. If my honesty is too much for some of you to take, I just don’t really know what to tell you, I would apologize if I felt I had given any reason to apologize, for being abusive to anyone in this forum, however, I cannot think of a time when I feel I have been abusive rather than just simply honest.
One more thing, right after I started commenting on this blog I admitted that I use sarcasm, it is a deeply embedded part of my being, I am not certain that I could be who I am without being sarcastic. I pointed out that one way I had tried to indicate sarcasm was by the use of this:
My remark to Brandon was the use of sarcasm.
I cannot change who I am just to make your life more comfortable, Brandon, but I do not feel I warranted what I received from you. Frankly, though I must admit that it did hurt me last night when I read it and thus caused me to lash out in anger, it did give me further insight into myself and into you. Thanks for that are in order, I suppose.
I guess this is something that a politically Conservative Christian must go through to be a part of such a “debate” group, having my writing style and the “way I come across” held under a microscope by a group of people seems to be a recurring theme when I try to communicate among Progressive Christians, I cannot help but wonder how any one of you would feel if you made an effort to communicate on Conservative Christian blogs and were held under such a microscope? Out of such consideration, empathy is born.
Best wishes to you all.
dorsey said,
November 29, 2005 at 3:26 pm
At the risk of getting back on topic, let me add to Crooked Saint’s comment that the temptation is subtle, but ubiquitous, to pick a position first and then look for scripture to support it rather than to let the whole counsel of scripture shape our perspectives. Out of such lazy exegesis is extremism born.
jf said,
November 29, 2005 at 6:34 pm
Is this discussion about the book or about smug people? Brandon, I would bet that Jacke will be visiting your blog regularly, once one reads your dialogue they can’t stay away.
Kevin said,
November 29, 2005 at 7:10 pm
I am realizing as i’m working on my thesis that the alliance of religion with corporate power that we’re seeing right now is unprecedented. and that the supposedly “culturally progressive” christians are among the worst offenders.
Bryon Mondok said,
November 29, 2005 at 9:01 pm
Hey, I think you’ll enjoy the rest of the book. Don does get involved politically - keep reading (you’ll dig it!) - but it’s not the typical political, tow the party-line, fund the Republican party politics Christians are most comfortable with.
After you finish Blue Like Jazz, read Searching for God Knows what. These are books that finally give Christians with questions about “our” politics permission to think.
Peace…
Pam said,
November 29, 2005 at 9:13 pm
Such a popular subject lately. Just wanted to direct you to a terrific blog that is all about Jazz theology, http://theomoments.blogspot.com/. I love his insight into the whole subject.
timmer k said,
November 30, 2005 at 9:46 am
dorsey said:
“At the risk of getting back on topic…”
Just have to say that was brilliant. Well done.
I really wonder about our assessment of “politics” here. Are we falling in to the assumption that politics meant the same thing in Jesus time as it does in our time?
As I understand Jesus life, he came to completely re-identify God’s people around Himself. (Followers of Christ today are “Christians” because we have chosen to bring our identity into line with who Jesus was and is.) In order to do this, Jesus was making a major anti-temple statement. The synoptic gospels are littered with this kind of talk–the tearing of the curtain being the last straw of sorts. Wasn’t this both a religious AND political statement? Hebrews of Jesus time had a concept of holistic life that we no longer have; I believe that leads to the misconception. Politics and Religion were inseparable because ALL of life had religious significance for a first century Jew–Jesus was no exception.
Don’t get me wrong. I think it is deplorable what Christians have done with politics in our day. *By all means, let’s keep the ten commandments in courtrooms* As if that’s our greatest concern… But, I think it would be a misconception to say that Jesus didn’t mix religion and politics. To him, like any other Jew of his time, they were inseparable.
Lorraine said,
November 30, 2005 at 12:22 pm
I can’t separate my politics from my faith (and it’s crazy making for the people who’d like to pigeonhole me as liberal because sometimes - ta da! - I’m not so much). Faith comes first and informs my politics…like, hopefully, ever other area of my life. The big fun is in keeping on top of it all because a living faith requires ongoing searching and questioning. It doesn’t always provide easy answers, ’specially in the political realm, ’specially in our culture when the whole label thing gets in the way of dialogue. (Try this parlor game: say you are pro-life in group of conservatives and then after the cheering dies down explain that you want to see a decrease in abortion in this country but you also support Roe, are against the death penalty and subscribe to a “just war” doctrine. Boy does that freak ‘em out).
Another reading recommendation, if you haven’t already: God’s Politics, Why the Right is Wrong and the Left Doesn’t Get it by Jim Wallis.
rick said,
December 1, 2005 at 10:50 am
Funny, it was the political and religious folks who killed Jesus. The same thing would happen today.
The reality is that religion and politics could not be separated in Jesus’ day.
And I agree with you, we shouldn’t separate our faith from our politics. As a matter of fact, our faith does impact our vote.
That is why I always say that I don’t have the guts to follow Jesus, so I settle for being a Christian. If I truly followed Jesus, I’d vote like Jesus would vote not for the “Christian” president.
Peace,
Rick
rick said,
December 1, 2005 at 10:52 am
Not sure what happened to my comment?
This part was missing…
And I agree with you, we shouldn’t separate our faith from our politics. As a matter of fact, our faith does impact our vote.
That is why I always say that I don’t have the guts to follow Jesus, so I settle for being a Christian. If I truly followed Jesus, I’d vote like Jesus would vote not for the “Christian” president.
Jacke said,
December 1, 2005 at 12:34 pm
Ah, Rick, but some people feel that when they truly follow Jesus that voting for that “Christian” President is the right thing to do, not because he is a Christian, necessarily, but because his political positions are more in line with their political positions and more in line with their own *Biblical worldview,* you know, the worldview that keeps me from being eligible as a “bad christian?” Lol.
rick said,
December 1, 2005 at 10:53 pm
John Kerry is a Christian and so is Bill Clinton. What makes Bush Christian? My point is, just like evangelicals want Christian music, Christian haircuts, Christian movies… they want a Christian president. But because they buy the package rather than the product they get what they always get, style and not substance. No damn wonder the church is always looking for the next fad. Bush is their fad.
Jacke said,
December 2, 2005 at 8:50 am
Rick, I think you are generalizing.
Brandon said,
December 2, 2005 at 9:46 am
Jacke,
I’ve been thinking a bit about our little exchange, hoping that I could put some real work into understanding why I feel the way I feel about some of your comments, like the one that touched off our little firestorm.
Here it is: I think you take my critique of conservatives as if I’m attacking you personally. Or, as if I’m attacking ALL conservatives personally.
I’m not.
When I wrote this post, I didn’t have you in mind. But, you responded like I did.
Here’s my thing, I don’t have anything against conservatives. I love lots of them. Often, they’re great, caring, loving people who strongly believe in their ideology.
The comment that you seemed to take issue with in my post was levelled not broadly at Christian conservatism or Christian conservatives. Rather, narrowly I sought to hone in on one aspect of Christian conservatism–an aspect that is true of some Christian conservatives, but not others.
What I’m saying is that SOME of Christianity has placed conservatism above Christianity. That’s not its proper place. That’s what I hate, that’s what I’m intolerant of. And, as Neal Plantinga–president of Calvin Theological Seminary–might say there’s nothing wrong with being righteously infuriated about a wrong committed.
Frankly, I haven’t lumped you into this group in my mind. Perhaps in your understanding of what’s going on in MY head, you think I have, but you’d be wrong.
Now, I’m sure you’re thinking…what about liberalism–isn’t that put before Christianity? What makes liberals so special that they can criticise conservatives for their placement of conservatism as a god while ignoring the plank in their own eye? Fair questions. I would argue that they shouldn’t. That kind of progressive Christianity isn’t particularly helpful. I’ve written about it here, from time to time and have taken flack from people in the Christian Alliance for Progress, too.
However, there is a difference between conservative Christians treating conservatism as a god and liberal Christians treating liberalism as a god. Fundamentally, conservative Christians treating conservatism as a god are seen by America as normal. That’s the status quo. These people are perceived to be the majority. And to me, right now, that’s dangerous. That’s why I’m more outspoken about this issue than liberalism as a god. If the tables turn, you can bet I’ll be cackling about that, too.
I hope that helps you better understand the context of my response to you when you came in with this comment:
You got me in a lather. I’m not sure what your intent could’ve been, other than getting me in a lather. That kind of comment certainly doesn’t do much to encourage what you’re claiming to pursue–real honest dialogue with progressive Christians.
So, Jacke, I’m not lumping you into a group. I don’t even know you. You seem like the kind of conservative that in real life I would like.
And, I hope you stick around so that I can get to know you better. Really, when unprovoked, I can be a pretty nice guy.
Jacke said,
December 2, 2005 at 11:09 am
Brandon, we all have our baggage. Part of my baggage is that Progressives seem to judge Conservatives for what they perceive as judgment, now, isn’t that an example of irony?
Not having read the book you are reviewing I am at a disadvantage on this topic but something which is important to me, and I have seen evidence that this is important to you, as well, is that we do not label one another but take each other as individuals. Certainly, we will all generalize to make a point but part of the reason I visit Progressive blogs is to try to shine a little light on why Conservative Christians take the positions they take. I cannot do this for the entire population of Conservative Christians, only for myself. But I believe that some or many Conservatives who support a Conservative agenda do so with good motivation.
Your statement was a generalization. I wish we didn’t have to stoop to generalizations, I try really hard not to and always try to include a disclaimer when I do so, but it is extremely difficult not to draw conclusions and cast a net around everyone because of what a few say or believe.
I replied to you under “What Progressives Want” it seems to me what Progressives want is the same thing as what I want. Simple consideration and respect.
You have mine.
Brandon said,
December 2, 2005 at 11:25 am
I’m not sure what statement you’re referring to that I made that was a generalization?
Help me out.
Jacke said,
December 2, 2005 at 11:55 am
Brandon writes:
“Christian spirituality often gets prostituted, whoreing itself out for the aims of political conservatism.”
That one. I could just as easily say:
Christian spirituality often gets prostituted, whoreing itself out for the aims of political liberalism.
The fact that you chose to address it from an an angle directed at political conservatism rather than political agendas, right OR left, without qualification, felt like an insult to me, Brandon. That’s what got ME in a lather, maybe it was an uncalled for lather, since, like I said, it is very difficult to make a point fairly at times. I felt you had unfairly lashed out at Conservatives, per se, without including all political views. Let’s try it this way…what if you visited my blog and found the same statement only worded this way…:
Christian spirituality often gets prostituted, whoreing itself out for the aims of political liberalism.
…with no mention of the fact that Christian spirituality often gets prostituted by conservatives?
Would that bother you?
Stephen said,
December 2, 2005 at 12:43 pm
Jacke,
I think I agree with you and Brandon in principle. The problem with the question that you ask at the end of your last comment is that mainstream liberalism wants nothing to do with Christianity.
As a liberal Christian whore, to hold onto a potential destructive analogy, we are a very ugly gigolo trying to pick up Janes outside the Playboy mansion.
What progressive Christians are trying to get into the cultural discourse is not of interest to the general populace of the democratic party, not to confuse liberalism (a political ideology) with the Democratic Party (a specific organization that claims to hold that ideology).
Let me give an example. Let’s say that I wanted to give my voice as a Christian to a political activist group.
Let’s say that my faith leads me to feel that abortion is always a tragedy and something to be avoided at all costs. However, it is something that I cannot impose on people who make that choice. (This is just an example. Let’s not get into it.)
Now, if I went to organizations on both sides and said, “Hi, my name is Steve. I’m a Christian, and I would like to help you with your actions on the issue of abortion,” essentially whoring myself out, then I would immediately find that the conservative group would welcome me, at least until I informed them of my exact stance. They would hear “Christian” and say, “He’s on our side,” even though i am not entirely.
If I went to NARAL or Planned Parenthood and did the same thing, they would reject me out of hand, regardless of the fact that my opinion ultimately supports many of their positions.
So, it is not an even playing field. Conservatives, in the mainstream perception, generally want Christians. This creates problems. Liberals generally avoid Christians, which has its own sets of difficulties for people who want to incorporate their faith into their political activities.
On a side note, I have been reading “Our Endangered Values” by Jimmy Carter, which Brandon recommended a while back. I think that Jacke should really read it. I think that Carter does a good job of outlining some of the difficulties in being a progressive Christian while at the same time really taking on the ways in which church and state have become entwined.
I’ll be posting about it on my blog, once I finish reading it.
Brandon said,
December 2, 2005 at 1:12 pm
Here’s my thing, though, Jacke. Like I think Stephen was asserting, the regularity with which Christianity gets prostituted for the aims of political conservatism is certainly skewed conservatively.
Again, it’s not my intent to insult you. But, I don’t see political liberalism as whoring out Christianity as anywhere NEAR as big of a problem as much as the way it happens on the conservative side of the aisle.
So, in answer to your question, yes, if you rephrased my comment as it relates to liberals, that would bother me. Not because Christian liberals don’t distort Christianity, though. It would bother me because it’s not true nearly to the degree that Christianity gets whored out to conservatives–and commonly Christians are happy and willing participants in the process. It happens the same way with liberals–but the fact of the matter is that it’s far more rare.
Jacke said,
December 2, 2005 at 2:56 pm
I am so glad we are discussing this, because, to me, this is the whole crux of the matter. Bear with me.
Stephen writes:
“What progressive Christians are trying to get into the cultural discourse is not of interest to the general populace of the democratic party, not to confuse liberalism (a political ideology) with the Democratic Party (a specific organization that claims to hold that ideology).”
Okay, Stephen, let’s look at it this way:
What conservative Christians are trying to get into the cultural discourse is not of interest to the general populace of the Republican party, not to confuse conservatism (a political ideology) with the Republican Party (a specific organization that claims to hold that ideology).
See, what Progressive Christians are after is the same thing that Conservative Christians are after. Conservatives whore themselves to the Republican Party, yes. Liberals (or Progressives) SEEK to whore themselves to the Democratic Party but feel rebuffed, therefore, liberals are making an attempt to do the very thing they abhor when they witness it accomplished by Conservatives. That my friend, is hypocrisy.
Now, I think both of you are pretty much in agreement with me but I don’t think you carry it through. Brandon has already expressed that he has been at odds with the Christian Alliance for Progress and that’s part of the crux, you see, I am at odds with Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell type conservatives too, but that is who defines conservative Christianity in the media. By the Christian Alliance for Progress promoting this labeling of “progressive” Christianity you are setting yourselves up for the same fall. The media will choose who will represent the voice of “Progressive” Christians without seeking out your approval and you will, one day, find yourselves defending yourself against a mass media connotation of what Progressive Christians believe.
In the end, the whole point it that labeling is bad. I have found it ironic that Progressives seek the very thing which they hate about Conservatives. I have voted primarily Republican in the past because that party most closely represents my political ideology. If you are honest you will admit that you have voted primarily Democrat because that is the party which most closely represents your political ideology. See? There is NO difference between you and me…none at all, except political ideologies. Neither of us should make a political ideology an idol. I don’t believe either of you do, neither do I and it should not be assumed that the majority of Conservative Christians do because of the choice of spokesmen the media has chosen to be the voice of Conservative Christianity.
Rather than making politics a god, I would prefer that conservative and progressive Christians make an effort to communicate, unite, and find common ground.
Jacke said,
December 2, 2005 at 3:01 pm
I will consider checking out the Jimmy Carter book at the library, at some point. I refuse to give him any of my money.
dufflehead said,
December 2, 2005 at 3:32 pm
jacke writes: “is that we do not label one another but take each other as individuals. Certainly, we will all generalize to make a point but part of the reason I visit Progressive blogs is to try to shine a little light on why Conservative Christians take the positions they take. I cannot do this for the entire population of Conservative Christians”
so if you are defending conservatives, but you can’t speak for all of them, that means you are defending yourself, right?
and if you think that we shouldn’t use labels, why do you keep using labels?
dufflehead said,
December 2, 2005 at 3:58 pm
and i maybe i missed it, but can someone give me an example of this “whoring”? i have some ideas, but i wanted to see if anyone had a “published” (like in the news) example. from all sides (right, left, middle, other) would be informational.
thanks
PJ said,
December 2, 2005 at 4:47 pm
I’ve talked with Jacke before about this whole conservative/progressive Christian thing and I told her once I felt we should keep politics and our Christianity separate. Which is wrong……because our Christianity should be the center of our lives and of course it will play a part in our political decisions. What I meant, and should have said is that I believe we can’t let our politics separate us, Paul warned against the dangers of being part of devisive groups.
Somewhere I have a voter registration card that identifies me as a Democrat. But, that’s just a word and in no way defines and shapes my beliefs as a Christian. And never will a word that implies political ideology or party be worthy enough to be attached to the word Christian. At least, that’s how I feel and I guess that is why I am bothered by the whole progressive/conservative Christian thing.
dorsey said,
December 2, 2005 at 6:26 pm
“Rather than making politics a god, I would prefer that conservative and progressive Christians make an effort to communicate, unite, and find common ground.”
I thought that’s what we were doing, then some smug jackass came in and hijacked the discussion.
ninjanun@hotmail.com said,
December 2, 2005 at 8:12 pm
I do think it’s disturbing that most people I encounter, when they learn I am a Christian, automatically assume I am a Republican, as well.
I also find it disturbing that some Republican officials know about this Christian/Republican paradigm and use it for political advantage, seeking to manipulate the flock with religious language.
If anything, I would hope ALL Christians would be more wary of politicians’ and pundits’ use of religious language, often used to provoke certain emotions in us (to get us to vote the way they want), and instead, think through the issues reasonably and get as much information as we can from all possible reliable sources (not just “christian” media) before making decisions. We must think through the issues and use our discernment, not just rely on what the politicians want us to hear.
ninjanun@hotmail.com said,
December 2, 2005 at 8:13 pm
Sorry, for some reason my link didn’t show up:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/11/03/abramoff/index_np.html
ninjanun said,
December 2, 2005 at 8:45 pm
Okay, that didn’t seem to work, either. Let’s try again:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/11/03/abramoff/index.html
Jacke said,
December 2, 2005 at 10:18 pm
Dufflehead writes:
“so if you are defending conservatives, but you can’t speak for all of them, that means you are defending yourself, right?
and if you think that we shouldn’t use labels, why do you keep using labels?”
Sure, I defend myself all the time. Does that surprise you?
I use labels for the same reason everyone else does, though I don’t think any of us should, it’s just too easy. Shame on me, I must be a smug jackass or sumthin’!
Jacke said,
December 3, 2005 at 9:59 am
Ninjanun writes:
“http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/11/03/abramoff/index.html”
and:
“If anything, I would hope ALL Christians would be more wary of politicians’ and pundits’ use of religious language, often used to provoke certain emotions in us (to get us to vote the way they want), and instead, think through the issues reasonably and get as much information as we can from all possible reliable sources (not just “christian” media) before making decisions. We must think through the issues and use our discernment, not just rely on what the politicians want us to hear.”
I agree with you, only I would have included the media into that last sentence along with politicians concerning not relying on what others want us to hear. We have to be careful not to just selectively read the media. Here’s a link for you, too:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/02/AR2005060202158.html
Excerpts:
“…Abramoff didn’t work just with Republicans. He oversaw a team of two dozen lobbyists at the law firm Greenberg Traurig that included many Democrats. Moreover, the campaign contributions that Abramoff directed from the tribes went to Democratic as well as Republican legislators.
Among the biggest beneficiaries were Capitol Hill’s most powerful Democrats, including Thomas A. Daschle (S.D.) and Harry M. Reid (Nev.), the top two Senate Democrats at the time, Richard A. Gephardt (Mo.), then-leader of the House Democrats, and the two lawmakers in charge of raising funds for their Democratic colleagues in both chambers, according to a Washington Post study. Reid succeeded Daschle as Democratic leader after Daschle lost his Senate seat last November.
Democrats are hoping to gain political advantage from federal and Senate investigations of Abramoff’s activities and from the embattled lobbyist’s former ties to House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.). Yet, many Democratic lawmakers also benefited from Abramoff’s political operation…”
Now, I am not quoting those excerpts to say that what any Republican involved with Abramoff and his firm did was right, only to say that if it was wrong for DeLay then it was also wrong for the many Democratic lawmakers who benefited from Abramoff but we hear nothing about those ties in the mainstream media, in fact in a May 5, 2005 story about DeLay ties to Abramoff:
http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2005/cyb20050505.asp
Excerpt:
“CBS Evening News anchor Bob Schieffer set up a Wednesday “Inside Story” look at Abramoff by explaining that “many of the allegations against [House Majority Leader Tom] DeLay revolve around foreign trips he took that were paid for by” Abramoff, as indeed they do, but he and Gloria Borger ignored the fresh information about how Abramoff also paid for the Democratic members. Following Borger’s review of Abramoff’s dealings with Indian tribes, Schieffer prompted her: “Gloria, this is going beyond Tom DeLay now, isn’t it?” But instead of raising the names of the two Democrats and tying them back to Abramoff, Borger just noted that Democrats are “beginning to discover that these rules that say that lobbyists cannot pay for travel are something that perhaps they didn’t understand.”"
There is a lot more story going on here and in just about every other case that the media slips under our noses, if we are not diligent, we will only get half of it. Note how the Democrats are excused because they just “didn’t understand” awwww, ain’t that special?
zalm said,
December 3, 2005 at 4:47 pm
Jacke,
I don’t think that ninjanun offered that link to make the point that Republicans and only Republicans are corrupt. I think that she was presenting it to show the cynical treatment of Christian conservatives by Abramoff, Scanlon, Ralph Reed and others.
The Salon article quotes a memo in which Scanlon outlines their strategy:
If you want a primary source, the appropriate passage is on page 119 of this 26MB PDF from the Congressional hearings:
http://indian.senate.gov/2005hrgs/110205hrg/110205exhibits.pdf
Was the article that ninjanun presented unbiased? Maybe not. Salon tends to have a liberal slant to its coverage. But it’s no more slanted than some of the Tech Central Station articles you use on occasion to bolster your arguments.
That said, let’s not get distracted by the rest of the article and miss the cynical, almost contemptuous, way these power brokers regard Christian conservatives.
I think the greater point here is that we as Christians need to be very careful not to become easily manipulated by power brokers of any ideology. If our political support can be bought so easily by a few thousand dollars here and there on Christian radio or mailing lists, if Christian support can be assumed and used so cynically, then maybe things are as Brandon so provocatively stated.
Jacke said,
December 3, 2005 at 5:39 pm
zalm writes:
“I think the greater point here is that we as Christians need to be very careful not to become easily manipulated by power brokers of any ideology. If our political support can be bought so easily by a few thousand dollars here and there on Christian radio or mailing lists, if Christian support can be assumed and used so cynically, then maybe things are as Brandon so provocatively stated.”
I agree, I was just reinforcing ninjanun’s point that:
“If anything, I would hope ALL Christians would be more wary of politicians’ and pundits’ use of religious language, often used to provoke certain emotions in us (to get us to vote the way they want), and instead, think through the issues reasonably and get as much information as we can from all possible reliable sources (not just “christian” media) before making decisions. We must think through the issues and use our discernment, not just rely on what the politicians want us to hear.”
Only I added that we need to be cautious about the media as well, I wasn’t trying to argue with her, I was trying to agree with her.