01.16.06
Posted in faith, politics, culture at 8:46 pm by Brandon
I’m hardly an apologist of any sort. And, to be fair it may be a bit confusing to call me a progressive Christian. It’s not that I’m not liberal or progressive (pick your label), and it’s not that I’m not a Christian–I am. Yet, it’s not so much my Christianity that is progressive as my political viewpoints. I think it’s worthwhile to make a distinction on this point as so many “progressive” Christians are actually relatively conservative when it comes to the tenants of their faith. Anyway, I digress–already.
The point is that I wanted to take a few paragraphs to respond to Jacke’s recent post in response to my post about faith and politics and so forth. I’m glad that Jacke and I have been able to have this conversation. I think one of the really cool things about discussions that happen in the blogosphere is that you meet–and have to explain yourself to–people with such divergent opinions. Doing this self-introduction really forces you to get to know and explain yourself. And, to tell the truth, I’ve been able to, once again, think through the things I believe and clear up, for myself and others exactly what it is that I’m thinking about life, faith, and the confluence between the two.
So, the goal of this note is to go through Jacke’s post and answer her main question: If Conservative Christians are redefining Christianity, I would like to know how? This is something I asserted earlier, that Conservative Christians, just like Progressive Christians, are trying to redefine their faith in order to suit their own political ends. Here’s a quote from Jacke’s post:
Okay, my problem is this. If Conservative Christians are redefining Christianity, I would like to know how? By believing that God’s Word is true? By believing that we can draw conclusions from God’s Word based on implications regarding other subjects which can be reasonably applied to modern day issues which are not mentioned, specifically, in the Bible? How is that redefining Christianity? How is believing in widely accepted interpretations of the Bible which have a long history in our faith somehow redefining Christianity? I would like more specificity on how, exactly, Conservative Christians have redefined Christianity by continuing to believe in time tested interpretations of theologians and Biblical scholars for ages. I would like to know how remaining committed to trying to live one’s life according to our understanding of scripture we are somehow redefining Christianity.
First of all, we need to take a step back, here. My comment that Conservative Christians are redefiniing Christianity was embedded in the understanding that it wasn’t ALL Conservative Christians doing so. And, Progressive Christians are playing the same game. In fact, my statement endorsed the life views of a Conservative Christian whose conservative politic grew out of their desire to pursue Christ.
But, what about this other contingent of folks. This group of people whose politic grows from the fact that modernism / Christianity / conservatism are inextricably linked rather than any desire to become more like Christ–How are these Conservative Christians redefining Christianity? By choosing which parts of scripture the’ll view as important and which parts they’ll view as unimportant.
They redefine Christianity as a modern religion. That is, they redefine Christianity as a religion that is fundamentally and essentially a product of a specific period of human existence–particularly, the period of culture humans formed in the US in the first 80 or so years of the 20th century. Christianity is not a modern religion. Christianity, though a culmination of cultural traditions, is bigger than just what mankind brings to it. I believe Christianity to be fundamentally divine.
So, yes, while Christianity is a religion in which God seeks to reconcile with man and does that in different ways and in different cultures, it fundamentally supercedes culture. What I think that many USian Conservative Christians have done is to, if you will, create an idol out of one historical period in Christianity.
Here’s what I mean: take alcohol for example. Many Christians use biblical principle to support their belief that drinking is either wrong or better not done. Now, this of course, is a cultural artifact more than it is a Christian artifact. Yet, Christians have redefined what it means to be Christian. Fundamentally, because of this cultural artifact, many Christians will tell you that it’s a sin to drink.
I think that the part about Jacke’s rhetoric that riles so many of us progressive Christians is that it takes the position of the rhetorical high ground. That is, it fundamentally uses language that presumes that progressive christians don’t believe the Bible is true or that we don’t believe that it can be used to understand how we, as Christians, are to behave. Progressive Christians, too, believe that the Bible is true, and we believe that one can extrapolate good things about how to conduct oneself in the work-a-day world from the Bible. Many progressive Christians believe in scriptural truth that have long traditions in our faith (for example, the traditionally progressive perspective on simplicity and living a non-ornamental life and worshipping in simple ways goes back to early protestantism in europe).
Just because modernism has been around for the past 100 years or so doesn’t make it THE traditional way to interpret Christianity.
If we cannot stand up in the face of those things of which God clearly did not approve, and in fact condemned in His Word, before they get a foothold and change our entire American society and value system how can we then claim that we are pursuing radical orthodoxy? It makes no sense to me.
You see, your definition, Jacke, of the things of which God did/does not approve is inextricably rooted in modernism. I’m arguing from a different place–probably best described as postmodernism (though, I think that’s a little incomplete). I’m simply saying that the grace of God is bigger than what makes sense to you, or me. Frankly, I have no clue how a conservative Christian can call themselves a “follower of Christ” and support a war effort that kills innocent people the world over, I haven’t any idea how a person could call themselves a “follower of Christ” and not support legislation that has the best intentions of the disenfranchised and marginalised at heart.
And, further yet, I have no idea how a person who says that they “follow Christ” could ever vote for a person who has used the racist fears of a white majority to win a political election for the office of President of the United States. I have no idea how a person could do these things which seem to me to be so “anti-the-will-of-God” and call themselves a pursue-er of radical orthodoxy. But, you know what, I still believe they can.
Just because something makes no sense to me, doesn’t make it wrong. And, the same is true for all of us. Sometimes things that don’t make sense are true.
So, how are Conservative Christians redefining Christianity? In short, I believe some of them are doing so by idolizing one particularly comfortable cultural context for Christianity (namely a modern understanding of Christianity) and treating that as if it were orthodoxy. They use modern Christianity as if it were some holy baseline from which to both look forward and back. As if the cultural platform that offered them their vantage point on all of scripture was somehow holier than any other cultural vantage point. And, it offers them a perspective that allows them to more correctly (than it does for others) look at all of Christianity. Their bias is that their perspective is traditionally historical (when, in fact, ancient Christianity and modern Christianity have a cultural ocean of differences between the two.)
Now, it’s also true that postmodernism is but another man-made platform from which to observe and (for some) to interact with Christianity. It’s not perfect, either. From these various platforms, Christians tend to form their political views. Some of those views are progressive, others liberal. I’m not arguing that ALL moderns idolize modernity. I’m simply saying that it’s a common pitfall for some.
I may have more on this later, but for now, I’ll take a break and let you respond if you wish!
Tags: Postmodernism, Modernism, Christianity, Politics, Political Christianity
Permalink
Trackback URL »
http://www.badchristian.com/2006/01/16/progressive-christian-apologetics/trackback/
Posted in faith, politics, culture at 8:46 pm by Brandon
I’m hardly an apologist of any sort. And, to be fair it may be a bit confusing to call me a progressive Christian. It’s not that I’m not liberal or progressive (pick your label), and it’s not that I’m not a Christian–I am. Yet, it’s not so much my Christianity that is progressive as my political viewpoints. I think it’s worthwhile to make a distinction on this point as so many “progressive” Christians are actually relatively conservative when it comes to the tenants of their faith. Anyway, I digress–already.
The point is that I wanted to take a few paragraphs to respond to Jacke’s recent post in response to my post about faith and politics and so forth. I’m glad that Jacke and I have been able to have this conversation. I think one of the really cool things about discussions that happen in the blogosphere is that you meet–and have to explain yourself to–people with such divergent opinions. Doing this self-introduction really forces you to get to know and explain yourself. And, to tell the truth, I’ve been able to, once again, think through the things I believe and clear up, for myself and others exactly what it is that I’m thinking about life, faith, and the confluence between the two.
So, the goal of this note is to go through Jacke’s post and answer her main question: If Conservative Christians are redefining Christianity, I would like to know how? This is something I asserted earlier, that Conservative Christians, just like Progressive Christians, are trying to redefine their faith in order to suit their own political ends. Here’s a quote from Jacke’s post:
Okay, my problem is this. If Conservative Christians are redefining Christianity, I would like to know how? By believing that God’s Word is true? By believing that we can draw conclusions from God’s Word based on implications regarding other subjects which can be reasonably applied to modern day issues which are not mentioned, specifically, in the Bible? How is that redefining Christianity? How is believing in widely accepted interpretations of the Bible which have a long history in our faith somehow redefining Christianity? I would like more specificity on how, exactly, Conservative Christians have redefined Christianity by continuing to believe in time tested interpretations of theologians and Biblical scholars for ages. I would like to know how remaining committed to trying to live one’s life according to our understanding of scripture we are somehow redefining Christianity.
First of all, we need to take a step back, here. My comment that Conservative Christians are redefiniing Christianity was embedded in the understanding that it wasn’t ALL Conservative Christians doing so. And, Progressive Christians are playing the same game. In fact, my statement endorsed the life views of a Conservative Christian whose conservative politic grew out of their desire to pursue Christ.
But, what about this other contingent of folks. This group of people whose politic grows from the fact that modernism / Christianity / conservatism are inextricably linked rather than any desire to become more like Christ–How are these Conservative Christians redefining Christianity? By choosing which parts of scripture the’ll view as important and which parts they’ll view as unimportant.
They redefine Christianity as a modern religion. That is, they redefine Christianity as a religion that is fundamentally and essentially a product of a specific period of human existence–particularly, the period of culture humans formed in the US in the first 80 or so years of the 20th century. Christianity is not a modern religion. Christianity, though a culmination of cultural traditions, is bigger than just what mankind brings to it. I believe Christianity to be fundamentally divine.
So, yes, while Christianity is a religion in which God seeks to reconcile with man and does that in different ways and in different cultures, it fundamentally supercedes culture. What I think that many USian Conservative Christians have done is to, if you will, create an idol out of one historical period in Christianity.
Here’s what I mean: take alcohol for example. Many Christians use biblical principle to support their belief that drinking is either wrong or better not done. Now, this of course, is a cultural artifact more than it is a Christian artifact. Yet, Christians have redefined what it means to be Christian. Fundamentally, because of this cultural artifact, many Christians will tell you that it’s a sin to drink.
I think that the part about Jacke’s rhetoric that riles so many of us progressive Christians is that it takes the position of the rhetorical high ground. That is, it fundamentally uses language that presumes that progressive christians don’t believe the Bible is true or that we don’t believe that it can be used to understand how we, as Christians, are to behave. Progressive Christians, too, believe that the Bible is true, and we believe that one can extrapolate good things about how to conduct oneself in the work-a-day world from the Bible. Many progressive Christians believe in scriptural truth that have long traditions in our faith (for example, the traditionally progressive perspective on simplicity and living a non-ornamental life and worshipping in simple ways goes back to early protestantism in europe).
Just because modernism has been around for the past 100 years or so doesn’t make it THE traditional way to interpret Christianity.
If we cannot stand up in the face of those things of which God clearly did not approve, and in fact condemned in His Word, before they get a foothold and change our entire American society and value system how can we then claim that we are pursuing radical orthodoxy? It makes no sense to me.
You see, your definition, Jacke, of the things of which God did/does not approve is inextricably rooted in modernism. I’m arguing from a different place–probably best described as postmodernism (though, I think that’s a little incomplete). I’m simply saying that the grace of God is bigger than what makes sense to you, or me. Frankly, I have no clue how a conservative Christian can call themselves a “follower of Christ” and support a war effort that kills innocent people the world over, I haven’t any idea how a person could call themselves a “follower of Christ” and not support legislation that has the best intentions of the disenfranchised and marginalised at heart.
And, further yet, I have no idea how a person who says that they “follow Christ” could ever vote for a person who has used the racist fears of a white majority to win a political election for the office of President of the United States. I have no idea how a person could do these things which seem to me to be so “anti-the-will-of-God” and call themselves a pursue-er of radical orthodoxy. But, you know what, I still believe they can.
Just because something makes no sense to me, doesn’t make it wrong. And, the same is true for all of us. Sometimes things that don’t make sense are true.
So, how are Conservative Christians redefining Christianity? In short, I believe some of them are doing so by idolizing one particularly comfortable cultural context for Christianity (namely a modern understanding of Christianity) and treating that as if it were orthodoxy. They use modern Christianity as if it were some holy baseline from which to both look forward and back. As if the cultural platform that offered them their vantage point on all of scripture was somehow holier than any other cultural vantage point. And, it offers them a perspective that allows them to more correctly (than it does for others) look at all of Christianity. Their bias is that their perspective is traditionally historical (when, in fact, ancient Christianity and modern Christianity have a cultural ocean of differences between the two.)
Now, it’s also true that postmodernism is but another man-made platform from which to observe and (for some) to interact with Christianity. It’s not perfect, either. From these various platforms, Christians tend to form their political views. Some of those views are progressive, others liberal. I’m not arguing that ALL moderns idolize modernity. I’m simply saying that it’s a common pitfall for some.
I may have more on this later, but for now, I’ll take a break and let you respond if you wish!
Tags: Postmodernism, Modernism, Christianity, Politics, Political Christianity
Permalink
Trackback URL »
http://www.badchristian.com/2006/01/16/progressive-christian-apologetics/trackback/
benjamin said,
January 17, 2006 at 12:27 am
Where are the martyrs for the faith at today? Where are the powerless marching to demand a cross from the powers and principalities? For the most part, they’re not in America. They’re in places like China, north africa, or Iraq, where it’s, you know, dangerous to call yourself a Christian. But forcing you to be polite to queers who want to wear wedding rings? That doesn’t score very high on the persecution meter, all things considered.
Anyways, MLK day is a perfect day to point this out - when the time came for the white churches to stand up for justice in the south, were they there? Why of course they were - someone had to run the hoses, someone had to train the dogs, someone had to tell those uppity colored folk to get back on the bus and you certainly couldn’t count on the atheists, jews or homosexuals to get the job done,
God condems a lot of things. Some things we care about, and some things we don’t.
Kyle said,
January 17, 2006 at 12:49 am
>I think it’s worthwhile to make a distinction on this point as so many
>“progressive” Christians are actually relatively conservative when it comes to
>the tenants of their faith.
I think the word you’re looking for is “tenets” of the faith, although the sentence does make an odd kind of sense as “tenants,” i.e., the temporary inhabitants who pay rent; most people, “progressive” and “conservative” alike, are quite conservative on who they allow to be seen as true followers of their particular version of Christianity.
Brandon said,
January 17, 2006 at 9:52 am
Note to self: use spellcheck.
Thanks, Kyle.
Logan Bennett said,
January 17, 2006 at 12:12 pm
Brandon,
I enjoyed this post a lot, it is such a struggle for the church to make changes, like you said about alcohol, that is just one of the many things that christians have placed a rule on, that are not nesicarily biblical, they are more cultural. But it is funny when you point out to people that these things are more cultural then they are biblical they get very deffensive. It takes people to make a stand to make changes though. what was good for the church 100 years ago, probably will not be the same kind of goodness for the church today, yet people still do not see it or want to change it. Look at Martin Luther it took a man like that to stand out against the church to make a change, to make people realize that the things that they where believing were not biblical, but they were rules that the cristians had layed down. Even MLK he had to take a stand to make a change, a change that people did not want to make. Usually there are only a handfull of people in our cultures who are not afraid of change, who actually understand that changes need to be made in order to survive. Then there are a lot of people who are afraid of change, and label anybody who is wanting or willing to make changes as going against the bible as not following God. My Fiancee and I watched Kindom of Heaven the other night. It was about the crusaders in the olden days of the templars and the muslims. It was funny to notice that the cristians were slaughtering people left and right killing off whole cities, and trying to eliminate whole races…….. The whole time the were yelling “God Wills It!!!!” as if that made what they were doing ok. Sometimes I see a lot of cristians doing just this same thing. Claiming that they are doing or saying God’s Will.
Jacke said,
January 17, 2006 at 12:30 pm
Brandon, I appreciate this post and, at least, at first reading I find nothing much with which to argue. I do, however, find something to discuss.
You write:
You are touching on something here which is done from both sides of the aisle.
Here’s a little background on how I began making this effort to communicate with “Progressive” Christians. I went to my Sunday school class one morning and the woman who leads the class in prayer requests and a short introduction to the lesson pointed out a newspaper article from my local paper. It was an article which was syndicated and ran, I suppose, all over the country. It was an introduction, of sorts, on this growing movement of “Progressive” Christians and how they love Jesus too. I have no problem with that, personally, though I understand some “Conservative” Christians do. Anyway, when I came home I found there was a web address: http://www.iamachristiantoo.org/, (IAACT) in the article. Being the naturally curious person I am, I paid a visit to I am a Christian Too, and being the “green as a gourd” visitor (forgive me, I am a hillbilly, you know?) I was, I had my own preconceived conceptions about what a “Progressive” Christian believes, some of those conceptions have turned out to be true, some have not and as is the case with anything there are varying degrees regarding individuals within any given group. I was wrong, however, to go in with preconceived conceptions about the blog owner and the frequenters of that blog. I found a link to your blog there and I think I was a little more successful in beginning discussions here without so many pre-conceived notions and without labeling the whole group as though you and everyone who reads your blog all fit into a nice, little slot which can be labeled, understood easily and filed away. Okay, now, with that history out of the way I will go back to the topic.
Now, I realize that you are not Bob at IAACT and you cannot speak for him but I want to quote something for you from Bob to make my point (and bear in mind that Bob and his group of commenters were my first experience with the “Progressive” Christian). Just since the New Year he wrote:
Why do some people feel it is first necessary to rip holders of another viewpoint to pieces before they can roll up their sleeves and make their own proposals? Why was it necessary for Bob to criticize the Republicans in the first place? To me, this is a childish view, one of “if I make that person look really evil..stupid…fill in the blank…I’ll look better by comparison” and this seems to be a tactic of the Democratic Party, as a whole. A person or party either has something to offer or it doesn’t, if it has nothing better to offer, perhaps then by doing a smear job on the other side they feel they have somehow elevated themselves in the process? In real life, real people see through this. Oh, I’d have so many things to say on this subject, but I realize that I don’t want to write a book here.
To put it in a nutshell, both “Conservative” and “Progressive” Christians engage in this rhetoric wherein they seem to say that my agenda or my goals are holier than your goals and both use selective scripture to make their points. You must realize this? This is why it is important to me that politics is not allowed to divide the Christian Community. I have stated before that I believe the “Progressive” Christian’s agenda and goals are good goals, I just, politically, disagree with the way you would institute them. I also believe that the “Conservative” Christian’s agenda (the broad one) is good.
First and foremost, I think that we should all bear in mind that Christians are to build up or edify the Body of Christ, the entire Body of Christ. We should not be engaging in battles in effort to tear each other to pieces, we should find our common ground and have discussions concerning the best ways to reach goals and agendas on which we can agree. We are all defensive, we do not trust, we are not open-minded enough to even consider the other view, instead we tend to view it as a battle in which one must win and one must lose and we all want to be on the winning side. But, I did just want to point out that both sides of the aisle engage in this attitude of “my goals are holier and better than your goals.” I have made a great effort NOT to display that attitude here, if I have I apologize, but I honestly think that it is just your perception that I have because you expect it and assume that I am saying that when all I am really trying to do is understand, learn, grow and communicate with “Progressive” Christians. Do you think it is possible to disagree politically and yet love? To disagree politically and show respect? To disagree politically and edify one another? I do, but I think it requires much patience. God must have given you and I an extra dose of that?
Signed,
A smug jackass
wildwest said,
January 17, 2006 at 12:36 pm
Hi Brandon,
Jacke sent me to your site. I’m glad she did. I’ve enjoyed reading it.
I am confused about your use of the term “modernism.” I have always understood that to refer to the understanding of Christianity and the Bible based upon information gleaned from the modern worldview and the study of biblical higher criticism. Modernism was a name given to the theology of the University of Chicago Divinity School in the first half of the twentieth century. Shailer Mathews wrote about it in “The Faith of Modernism.” One of its best exponents in our neck of the woods was the late Duncan E. Littlefair of Fountain Street Church in Grand Rapids.
The “modernism” you describe seems, by contrast, to date back to Lyman Beecher and Timothy Dwight and their post-millennial view of American as a “Christian nation” with temperance as a means of bringing about the Kingdom of God on earth.
And I’ve always thought “post-modernism” was a kind of linguistic-oriented school of philosophy in late-20th century France.
Please help me out, here. I think I hear what you’re saying in your post, but some clarity in definition of terms will help.
wildwest said,
January 17, 2006 at 12:54 pm
Hi Jacke,
You write: “Do you think it is possible to disagree politically and yet love? To disagree politically and show respect? To disagree politically and edify one another?”
Of course it is. But 2,000 years of Christian history has shown what a challenge that can be. Differences of opinion over the human-divine nature of Jesus caused people to riot in Constantinople. Differences of opinion over the veneration of images (among other things) caused deep divisions and an eventual permanent split between eastern and western Christianity. The Thirty Years’ War nearly decimated Europe over Protestant-Catholic issues. Some of those issues continued to be fought in Northern Ireland until our own time.
You and I have expressed our differences of opinion as well, yet neither one of us seems enamored with the fact that such differences can cause that much conflict and harm. You’d think it would be so easy to simply avoid hurting each other, wouldn’t you?
Jacke said,
January 17, 2006 at 1:06 pm
Well, wildwest, you’re a different case all together. I live and breathe just to hurt you.
wildwest said,
January 17, 2006 at 1:36 pm
I can believe that.
Brandon said,
January 17, 2006 at 6:26 pm
When I refer to modernism, WW, I’m refering back to the movement in culture (more broadly than simply a movement w/i Christianity) that emphasized knowing things with certainty, logistic prevalence, and positivism. It seems to me that much of Christianity views life and faith from that platform. No doubt the theological modernism you describe is a certain subgroup of modernism. I just think that it extends beyond the pluralist leanings you’ve pointed out, that’s all. In short, my definition of modernism is largely shaped by the modernism of logical positivist view of the social and natural sciences in the early 20th century…I think Christians have latched onto that logical postivism and used it for their own gain (and sometimes loss).
Post modernism. Well, I suppose in my book, specifically, I’m referring to a school of thought that holds that certainty and truth, while real and noble goals, are unattainable by humans. Now, I’m not sure that it’s entirely accurate to call myself a po-mo…but, for the sake of simplicity I would root my own perspectives (particularly related to epistemology) in that school of thought. Most po-mo’s don’t reject the notion of absolute truth out of hand, and neither do I. It’s the idea of a human approaching that truth that tends to send the hair on the back of my neck into attention. Again, I’m sure that po-mo has outgrowths in 20th century french philsophy of language, I’m just referring to the broader context for that movement.
Hope that helped!
wildwest said,
January 17, 2006 at 7:46 pm
It helps, I suppose, as much as it can at this point. I’ve been buried in history and theology too long. Once I come up for air and brush up on philosophy once more I should be OK. I assume these terms will be more thoroughly described in a dictionary or encyclopedia of philosophy, and going there will be my next step.
Thank you for the clarification.
Josh said,
January 17, 2006 at 8:02 pm
It always bothers me when people make negative comments about Christians without really reviewing their history. First, it was primarily white Christians who were pushing for the freedom for the slaves, and though the civil war was also about econimics blah blah blah, this point cannot be lost in relation to the civil rights movement, and Christians involvment there. There were many white people who were involved in the civil rights movement–even from the south, many of whom were Christians. It is wrong to sterotype a group of Christians who fail to act. We don’t know what was in their hearts, and I am confident that no true beleiver would be bashing peaceful protestors over their heads, just out of racial spite. In fact the real question needs to be not where are the marters, but where are the true believers? Simply assuming all these supposedly “Christian” folks sttod idly by while Roas Parks sat in the back promotes a kind of fractious segregation as potentially damaging as that of the civil rights era, and seems to be promotinh a kind of self righteous position. Lets not forget that Martin Luther King Jr, was a Christian who moved by his deep pashion for God, and love of people, was inspired to put into action biblical admonishments about not making racial or class distinctions. So what his skin was dark. God sovereignly made him that way that he might be in a postion to act. In the end, MLK is a Christian marter, and the fact that he was black is totally irrelevant. The fact that he was a believer acting in faith is much more important, and that fact is often missed.
Brandon said,
January 17, 2006 at 8:11 pm
So…let me get this straight, Josh, you’re accusing Benjamin of not having his history down, right?
Benjamin, any thoughts on this?
benjamin said,
January 17, 2006 at 10:59 pm
Well, let’s be honest - other than the black northern christians, who else was going to stand against southern slavery? The Vermont Buddhist Association? The West Pennsylvannian Zoroastrian Society? And once the civil war was over, who filled the ranks of the KKK? Sad to say that in places such as Indiana and Iowa, it was members of the very same Quaker meetings who had stood against slavery just a generation or two before.
And while I’m glad that Josh is confident that Bull Connors wasn’t a true Christian, the fact of the matter is that good Jesus-loving Christ-confessing Christians set up and enforced the culture of Jim Crow.
Now goddamnit, let’s talk about beer. Anybody up for a sixer or two of Schmidt?
Xpatriated Texan said,
January 17, 2006 at 11:07 pm
Yep. That’s why I call myself a Christian Progressive (or Liberal) rather than the other way around.
A historical comment: Most abolitionists opposed slavery as being inherently evil because it made the whites lazy and dependent on the blacks. They thought that once slavery was ended that blacks would naturally tend to migrate back to Africa. Hence, they set up the country of Liberia to welcome them.
Amazingly, many of the freed slaves considered themselves Americans. How uppity can one get?!?!?!
XT
wildwest said,
January 18, 2006 at 9:06 am
“the fact that he [MLK} was black is totally irrelevant.”
Huh??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
holy moly! said,
January 20, 2006 at 1:38 am
nice post overall, but i do wish we’d put to rest the idea that opposition to the alcohol and tobacco industries is in any way “conservative”. It’s a fundamentally progressive position, historically and philosophically.
greenqueen1 said,
January 24, 2006 at 12:55 pm
I think that we argue too much about what christianity is. You can profess any level of faith, and still call yourself a christian. However, the true meaning of being a christian is simply following Jesus Christ. He asked us to follow him, and we do or we don’t. He never told us to hate anyone. We are not to stand as judges against those who make decisions for their lives that we disagree with.
It seems that it is Christianity that is being addressed here, rather than the teachings of Christ.
Nobody can easily define Protestantism anymore because one definition only causes a backlash by another, same with catholicism. Friends, it is all just a smokescreen. Read the bible, love your neighbour, do that which is good. The poor are still waiting for the arguments to finish, so we can care about what really matters.