10.11.06
Posted in revolutionaries at 12:11 pm by Brandon
So, ah, here’s my deal. I’ve been busy.
Now, I’m not talking “mildly occupied”, I’m talking “holy-crap-balls-Lucy-I’ve-fallen-asleep-doing-reading-for-
class-every-night-for-the-past-three-weeks busy”.
Anyway, because I’ve been busy, and for whatever reasons, some of you have been ever so kind enough to keep popping by, I’ve decided that I’d do a series of low-work (for me) and high bang for your buck (for you, given that you can read here for free) posts on revolutionaries of the web. I’ll try to pick out some quotes from web-revolutionaries of the faith that are making their voices known. That’ll make me feel a little better about taking the more reclusive posture I’ve been taking, and it’ll give those of you who waste your time here feel like you have something to read.
So, here’s the first revolutionary tale from a 40-something gentleman. Whether he’s a person of any faith or no faith I don’t know. Frankly, it doesn’t much matter. His message, a destinction between Christians and christians is, I think a helpful one:
Christians– those people on TV and in government who are always judging and condescending (see also Idiots & Pussies). Not to be confused with christians (lower case ‘c’) who are feeding the hungry, visiting the sick, clothing the poor, consoling the heartbroken, standing up to the Man in support of the People. You find Christians on TV and in public office calling us to assasinate the president of Venezuela or kill innocent Arabs; you find christians in the poorest areas of your city handing out food and clothing and along the US/Mexico border handing out water.
Food for thought.
Permalink
Trackback URL »
http://www.badchristian.com/2006/10/11/revolutionaries-vol-1/trackback/
Posted in revolutionaries at 12:11 pm by Brandon
So, ah, here’s my deal. I’ve been busy.
Now, I’m not talking “mildly occupied”, I’m talking “holy-crap-balls-Lucy-I’ve-fallen-asleep-doing-reading-for-
class-every-night-for-the-past-three-weeks busy”.
Anyway, because I’ve been busy, and for whatever reasons, some of you have been ever so kind enough to keep popping by, I’ve decided that I’d do a series of low-work (for me) and high bang for your buck (for you, given that you can read here for free) posts on revolutionaries of the web. I’ll try to pick out some quotes from web-revolutionaries of the faith that are making their voices known. That’ll make me feel a little better about taking the more reclusive posture I’ve been taking, and it’ll give those of you who waste your time here feel like you have something to read.
So, here’s the first revolutionary tale from a 40-something gentleman. Whether he’s a person of any faith or no faith I don’t know. Frankly, it doesn’t much matter. His message, a destinction between Christians and christians is, I think a helpful one:
Christians– those people on TV and in government who are always judging and condescending (see also Idiots & Pussies). Not to be confused with christians (lower case ‘c’) who are feeding the hungry, visiting the sick, clothing the poor, consoling the heartbroken, standing up to the Man in support of the People. You find Christians on TV and in public office calling us to assasinate the president of Venezuela or kill innocent Arabs; you find christians in the poorest areas of your city handing out food and clothing and along the US/Mexico border handing out water.
Food for thought.
Permalink
Trackback URL »
http://www.badchristian.com/2006/10/11/revolutionaries-vol-1/trackback/
Chris said,
October 11, 2006 at 2:17 pm
I’d say its the other way around because Christians have respect for Christ whereas those who are just using the name christian have no respect for christ.
Just my two cents.
wildwest said,
October 12, 2006 at 10:01 am
Sssshhhhhh, Chris! Don’t let the Christians hear you say that!
Kevin said,
October 12, 2006 at 10:29 am
What’s wrong with vaginas?
Recovering said,
October 12, 2006 at 11:01 am
Nice…I love how no spiritual conversation can avoid political propaganda from one side or the other anymore…
Brandon said,
October 12, 2006 at 1:27 pm
I’m not sure I understand, Recovering.
spanders said,
October 12, 2006 at 4:36 pm
I’m fairly uncomfortable with using the word always. Televangelists, like anyone, has pros and cons. My opinion is that there seems to be many more cons than pros, but I’m not sure that they’re always one way or the other. My observation is that they normally put forward the idea of strict father morality and emphasize that over the nurturant aspect of god, which is why they seem to judging. Strict father morality requires that we know that evil exists, what it is and that the only way to conquer it is by following the moral discipline of god and then further down the patriarchal hierarchy including president, minister, father and so on. This adherence to strict father morality relies on specific gender roles, definitions of harm (the only real harm is eternal harm) and freedom (one is only free when following god and strict father morality).
My assessment is that this is why progressive, or liberal christianity seems anathema and possibly more offensive than other religions. It betrays the idea of strict father morality and focuses more on the nurturant aspect of god, which does not focus on gender roles or conquering evil through discipline. Progressives (in my opinion) see harm as not only a spiritual force, but as a physical one as well. This is why more efforts are put into the physical wellbeing than into protecting others from spiritual harm (or being judgemental). This is not to say that conservative christianity dismisses the physical wellbeing of others, but I think it is viewed more as a vehicle to save others from spiritual harm rather than an end in itself.
I think what this author is objecting to is the over emphasis on strict father morality, which is what he refers to as Christians. Of course I’m adding a bit more into this as I think this author is also objecting arrogance, which is not necessarily an aspect of either strict father morality or nurturant morality. Arrogance can be found in either “side”.
Further, I think recovering is correct in some ways if I understand correctly. Our religion has been heavily politicized and I think it’s an interesting question if, as christians, we should work to influence public policy and become heavily involved in politics or if we should first consider plurality so that we coexist with others without intruding on their freedoms. I suspect the answer relies heavily on how you define harm. Since I’m not sure that god sends the majority of his creation to hell and also that we have the absolute truth about the metaphysical, we should focus on the physical well being of others and much less concerned about spiritual harm. If we focus on the physical wellbeing of others, I think it follows that it helps others with their own spiritual wellbeing without forcing any answers on others.
2calvinistic said,
October 12, 2006 at 6:06 pm
What does Spanders mean by father morality?
Recovering said,
October 13, 2006 at 9:50 am
Brandon - typo…sorry. I meant to say “can’t avoid.” I’m guilty of this too. It is easy to make a spiritual point (meet practical needs/love each other) and then throw in a controversial political point (…kill innocent arabs) that isn’t nearly as clear-cut and universally accepted as the spiritual point.
I’m no dualist and I know that there is no separation between the secular and the sacred but I think we need to be careful about how we marry our political & spiritual issues on subjects like this.
There are plenty of passionate Christ-followers who meet practical needs and have amazing amounts of compassion for their “neighbors” but who see Biblical justification for not appeasing terrorists and don’t think the Islamic Fascists we are fighting are innocent.
I appreciate your post, however, and am glad to see you posting again.
Recovering said,
October 13, 2006 at 9:53 am
P.S. - forgive my double negative…I’m full of typgraphical and grammatical issues lately…:)
wildwest said,
October 13, 2006 at 10:22 am
They’re not innocent, but they aren’t fascists, either, Recovering. btw, who is appeasing terrorists?
Brandon said,
October 13, 2006 at 1:34 pm
I don’r really read anything really fundamentally political in this person’s distinction…and I think it’s dead on.
I think there’s a tendency in the christian dialectic today to assume politization when there’s nothing fundamentally political about a view. For example, I’m pro-life generally. Now, you could assume that means I’m politicising this issue, when in fact, by saying I’m pro-life I’m simply stating my position that I think christians should be in the business of promoting life. And, in fact, I think that were being pro-life becomes political I’m much farther to the left on the spectrum than I am to the right.
I don’t think the writer has any interest in marrying political and spiritual views. Frankly, I think this is a defense tactic used by conservative Christians who don’t like that their faith compels (or should compel) them to be social progressives. There’s nothing political about stating that people of faith should not be about killing innocent arabs, or handing out water at the US border (Canadian OR Mexican). These things are simply a matter of what our faith should compel us to do.
It’s a cop-out to call that a politicisation.
dorsey said,
October 16, 2006 at 7:47 am
While I agree with the writer’s assessment, I do perceive a political dynamic (albeit unintenional) in his statement. However, I think my perception is largely the result of the prevailing polar cultural/political climate. I mean, if I say, “I believe abortion is murder,” a great many people will interpret that as a political position, even though I said nothing about a particular course of action.
The “us vs. them” disposition of national politics has corrupted debate by inflaming our propensity to infer meaning. The result of christianity allowing itself to become identified as “Republican” has been that the church is now as polarized as the nation.
I’m coming to the conclusion that the only real christians left are in Westvleteren.
Art said,
October 16, 2006 at 11:04 am
I undersatand the point (and I agree) but I don’t understand how he chose which one got the “C” and which one got the “c”.
dorsey said,
October 16, 2006 at 3:03 pm
Yeah, that messed me up, too.
Scott said,
October 17, 2006 at 8:09 am
I think the big C, little c issue is satire. Those whom he calls Christians do it by “the authority of God” but those called christians do so in humility and service. Unfortunately, he’s not the one doing it, it’s the Church doing it. We often attach a capital to infer association with God as if God needs us to tell people we are associated with him. I think that is why everyone has such a problem with this minor point: we make the association and can’t handle the fact that something we identify with and identify with God as a negative. However, I think it is just the opposite, the author isn’t mocking God, he’s mocking self aggrandizing Christians.