A few days ago, my post about Rush Limbaugh's divorce hit the hot button of a few folks. It wasn't a particularly favorable review of Rush, although I don't think it was mean-spirited in any way, but I wouldn't have been surprised to have gotten some flack for it. No flack was received - the commentors agreed with me pretty much. One commentor made reference to all of the political blogging that goes on especially among Christian bloggers and I thought I would jump off of that and share some thoughts. This commentor raised a valid concern about blurring the line between what we call "conservative" and what we call "Christian."
That's an issue that definitely needs to be addressed, and here are a few thoughts on that.
First of all, the Bible is a big book and the Christian worldview is big worldview. The Bible and the Christian worldview have something to say about every sphere of activity in creation. In that regard the Bible has principles which can and should be applied in the political realm. For example, there are ethical principles that can be applied across the board in any sphere of activity, be it political, economic, social, media or what have you. Also, I would argue that you can derive some philosophical principles from Scripture that can inform political beliefs. For instance, I think a case can be made, biblically, that government has a limited and restrictive function in society. Therefore, I would be willing to argue in favor of a political party that at least tried to adhere to this, or that adhered to it more than another party.
Secondly, since the Bible is such a big book, with so much to say about so many things, it is appropriate that Christians who are well grounded in the Scriptures speak about principles derived from the Word of God in whatever sphere they find themselves in. So, Christians should be bringing the Word of God and Christian worldview to bear in the media, education, sports, entertainment, and yes, politics.
Third, there is the matter of calling. Some are called to preach, some are called educate, some are called to build, some are called engineer, some are called to the arts, and some are called to politics. If someone has a calling from God to the political arena then they need to fulfill that calling.
Fourth, blogging is conducive to this kind of stuff. Some are called to the arts, but blogs aren't a good place for Christian artists to express themselves. Some are called to mercy ministry, but blogs aren't a good place for that. Some are called to counseling, but again, blogs aren't a good vehicle for that. Blogs are great vehicles for those whose calling is in the arena of ideas, and poltics is an arena of ideas. So, it is reasonable to assume that there would be many Christian bloggers who major in politics.
With all of those things in view, it is entirely appropriate that we have a contingent of Christian bloggers who are addressing political issues from a Biblical standpoint.
The issue my commentor brought up, about blurring the lines between what we call "conservative" and what we call "Christian," is a different matter. By the by, I would also say that there are many who blur the lines between "Christian" and "liberal," just so that we know this is not a problem of one group of people. But, the issue of blurring the lines is reminiscent of the problems that Paul faced with the church in Galatia.
The Galatian heresy is to piggy back extra-biblical matters onto the Christian faith, and make those extra-biblical matters tests of saving faith, or sanctification. In Galatia it had a particularly Jewish flavor. I have always described the problem at Galatian in these terms - the Judaizers said that to be a good Christian you had to be a good Jew. What is interesting to me is that when obeying the Jewish customs is treated as a matter of indifference, Paul submits to them. In Acts 16:3 he has Timothy circumcised because of some Jews in Lystra and Iconium. It seems that, though this was not required, Paul felt it would be reasonable to do it so as not to hinder the spread of the gospel. But, in Galatia, Paul fought tooth and nail against such a thing, because the Judaizers had taken that matter of indifference and made it an essential matter.
We face similar things in all kinds of places and all kinds of ways today, and politics is one area we face it in. I can remember years ago, when I lived in Orlando, FL, a talk show host on a Christian radio broadcast did a show titled "Can you be a Democrat and still be a Christian?" I didn't listen to the show itself, but am disturbed that he would even raise the question, because this is clearly crossing the line into Galatianism.
This is not a new problem. During the run-up to the civil war several denominations had debates about slavery. There was a rift among the Baptists and the Presbyterians in this regard. The common view is that the Southern Presbyterians wanted to keep their slaves and the Northern Presbyterians were in favor of abolition (this "common view" is also true of the Baptists). However, those who are familiar with the Southern Presbyterian position will tell you it wasn't that way. At one point, the Northern Presbyterians made some kind of motion asking the denomination to support abolition. The Southern Presbyterians countered that the Northerners were in error to make support of a particular piece of political legislation a condition of fellowship. Thus, the Southern Presbyterians contend that they weren't so much defending slavery, they were defending against a kind of creeping Galatianism that added extra-biblical requirements as conditions of fellowship. And, if you read or listen to supporters of the Southern cause you can find all kinds of stuff where they talk about the steps they were taking to emancipate the slaves and prepare them for a better life, etc..
In one respect I am fully supportive of the Southern Presbyterian position. It is going beyond the bounds of church authority to make the support of any kind of legislation a condition of fellowship. Yet, I have to say that I can't think of any biblical defense of slavery as an institution (although I know that there are some, even today who try to do so). In our day and age, I see abortion as comparable. Abortion is an unmitigated evil and I have a very difficult time believing that someone can be a Christian and knowingly support legalized abortion. It's the same way with slavery.
But, having said that, it raises another issue - how does one address these evils in society? Do we have to make a particular position on abortion (or slavery) a condition of fellowship? What am I to do if someone comes into my church who has been steeped in worldly philosophy and has always firmly believed the arguments in favor of legalized abortion. Suppose they come to a genuine experience of faith in Christ. Do I make their stance on abortion a matter of fellowship, or treat it as a pastoral issue? It's not an easy question to answer? A new believer may simply be ignorant of Biblical principles and needs to be embraced into the fellowship and educated. To that person we might say "the official position of our church is that abortion is murder and we intend to do all we can to persuade you of that fact." If they say something like "oh, I've never really thought that through, I'm not convinced but willing to listen and learn," that's one thing. But what if we have someone who claims to be a believer and is not acting in ignorance? They've studied the issue and come to the conclusion that abortion is ok. In such a situation, we may have a legitimate church discipline issue.
Because of those things I'm reticent to make a particular stance on abortion an across-the-board condition of fellowship in the church. In that respect, I can support the Southern Presbyterians. But the fact that I am not making a particular stance on abortion a condition of fellowship, doesn't mean that I won't preach against it and call it what it is - murder. If the Southern Presbyterians not only said that you shouldn't make support for abolition a condition of fellowship, but went on to justify the institution of slavery itself, then I would have a real problem. If slavery is an evil institution in and of itself, then it would be incumbent upon them to speak out against it, and failure to do so would be failure to fulfill their Biblical duty.
This is a very difficult thing - admission into the church is contingent upon a credible profession of faith. We dare not add to what God requires. We take people where they are, not where they ought to be. But we balance this out with the practice of church discipline. These are things where tremendous wisdom is needed.
All of the above is to agree with the one who warned us about blurring the lines, while at the same time acknowledging that it is difficult to know when the the threshhold of blurring has been crossed. The questions I raised above which I didn't really give very good answers to show the difficulty in knowing when a Christian has crossed the line. An example comes to mind.
Suppose Mario Cuomo goes to his local catholic church and speaks out in favor of abortion. Would the priest/bishop/cardinal be within his rights to censure him for such speech? I think the answer is unequivocally "yes." If Mario speaks in favor of abortion on the campaign trail or in some other political forum, would the same priest/bishop/cardinal be within his rights to censure him for such speech? Again, the answer would be yes, but the priest would then be accused of crossing the line into politics when he is only holding a church member accountable for fidelity to his church's beliefs.
The church has the right and obligation to speak about matters of public policy insofar as it can be shown that the Bible has something to say on those particular matters. So, I think our political bloggers are doing well to speak on these matters.
I won't chase this rabbit for now, but the next issue that comes to mind is in discerning which matters does the Bible speak on. I believe the Bible very clearly speaks about abortion, it is much harder to discern a clear Biblical position on matters such as war and other things. But this is for another time and post.
Of greater concern to me and the commenter is the Christian's tendency to place too much hope and too much trust in politics and politicians and to tie the fortunes of Christianity to the fortunes of a particular party, or nation for that matter. For example, consider the following from Michael Scott Horton:
A few years ago, I had a discussion with U.S. Senate chaplain, Dr. Richard Halverson, and he told me how difficult it is to travel around the world and have other American believers traveling with him express their faith in extremely cultural terms. Living in Washington, he says, "No one actually says it, but it's there, and that is the idea that if we just get the right man--and it has to be a man--in the White House, and the right people in the Supreme Court, we'll have the kingdom of God. Now let's get to it!" And then Dr. Halverson quoted a penetrating question from Malcolm Muggeridge: "What if the church had pinned its hopes on the Roman Empire?" "I can't forget that," Dr. Halverson said, "at a time when the church is pinning its hopes on the good 'ol U.S.A.."Similarly, Rome was center of the universe for Christians and many Christians tied the fortunes of Christianity to the fortunes of Rome. As the Barbarians invaded Rome, Jerome lamented: "How can we be safe if Rome perishes!" Yet Augustine didn't see the Barbarian invasion as a negative because he didn't think the City of God needed to be propped up by the City of Man. In the article referenced above by Horton, he quotes Henry Chadwick as follows:
Augustine saw the Church existing for the kingdom of God, the true 'eternal city,' beyond the rise and fall of all empires and civilizations. Even 'Christian' Rome could claim no exemption from the chaos and destruction brought by the barbarians. Augustine never supposed that the interests of the Roman empire and the kingdom of God were more or less identical. In relation to the church, he thought, the government had a positive function to preserve peace and liberty. But the barbarians who attacked the empire were not necessarily enemies to the city of God. It would be the western church's task to convert its new barbarian masters.Unfortunately, many modern American Christians have the attitude of Jerome, or at least they act as if the fortunes of the Kingdom of God are tied to the fortunes of the USA or of a particular party.
So with all of that in mind, I would affirm the validity of political blogging for Christians. I for one, have several favorites who blog politically. LaShawn Barber is my favorite of the political bloggers, but I also like Josh Claybourn, Evangelical Outpost and King of Fools real well. At the same time, I would encourage them, and all of the political bloggers to remind their readers that politics are not ultimate. The nations are still a drop in the bucket, the heart of the king is still in the hands of the Lord, and God is still sovereign, not government. And the gospel is still a more powerful means of change than legislation.
For the last several elections, at some point in the process I will hear some well meaning Christian say something like "this is the most important election in our nation's history." It will be followed up with some rhetoric that makes one feel like life and death is riding on this particular election. I've even heard it said that failure to vote is a sin (talk about some serious Galatianism!). All of this gives ascribes too much power to the candidates and too much power to the political process. I would love to hear or read some Christians (bloggers or not) step back from the candidates themselves and analyze the whole political process from a Christian perspective. It's fine to argue in favor of your candidate, but we need to qualify these things by saying "God is sovereign and if my candidate doesn't win, it won't be the end of the world, we serve a God who is greater than any politician." Or something like that.
We need to be careful about our expressions of alarm when things don't go our way. As an evangelical Christian going to a very conservative church, you can probably imagine the reaction in the circles I ran in when Bill Clinton was elected. It was like a punch in the stomach, like the evangelical movement had the wind knocked out of it. It was as if evangelical Christendom was defeated along with George Bush Sr. That was the time when I saw more clearly than ever before that, yes indeed, many Christians had equated the fortunes of the Kingdom of God with the fortunes of a political candidate.
The Kingdom of God is so much bigger than a nation or a party. Yes, we need to speak to the issues and yes we need Christian voices in the political arena, but let's not act as if politics are ultimate or as if politics are our religion.
In Daniel 2, Nebuchadnezzar has his famous dream of the Colossus which represents all the kingdoms of the world. A rock comes and falls on the feet of the statue and the whole statue crumbles. This isn't only a prophecy of the destruction of a particular government, its a picture of the fact that all human government crumbles under the weight of Christ our rock. All human governmental systems are temporary and destructible by nature. While we can work for good within them, we dare not hope in them. Only the Kingdom of God is eternal, and only the Kingdom of God is worthy of our hopes and dreams.
This is too good. I'm linking to it later today.
Posted by: La Shawn Barber | June 16, 2004 at 10:10 AM
Great post. Thanks.
Posted by: Randy McRoberts | June 16, 2004 at 01:00 PM
Thanks David -- alot to think about here. I'd agree that Christians blogging about political issues isn't only a permissible thing, it's a good thing. We need to be out in the public square, and blogging is a keystone of the new public square. I'd also agree wholeheartedly that it's dangerous to identify Christian faith with any political party or nation, and that the Church (that is, believers in Christ) have an obligation to engage in policy debates.
I get nervous, though, about local churches engaging in politics or policy debates. What makes me most nervous about local churches (i.e., pastors in the pulpit) taking sides on specific policy issues, I think, is that I don't think most pastors are well equipped to do so. I hope this doesn't come across as snobbery, but I practiced law for 12 years and now I teach law, and I often cringe when I hear a preacher try to reduce a complicated legal / policy issue into some kind of "return to Christian America" flag-waving sound bite. Most policy issues just aren't so black and white in the real world, and most pastors (at least those I've known) simply aren't immersed in the nuances. (Please note that I'm not suggesting moral relativism here -- just that most policy discussions are too complex for sermon sound bites).
I guess I'd ordinarily rather see local churches do what they do best -- instruct in the basics of the faith and provide a community for worship and mutual support -- and then have those believers who are called and equipped to do so go out into the world to engage in policy debates.
I have a few other thoughts, but I think I'll save them for a post on my blog.
Posted by: dopderbeck | June 16, 2004 at 04:12 PM
David - I couldn't agree with you more - how about that - you and I are on the same page on this one! I'll be checking your blog for your entry. I agree wholeheartedly that most pastors are ill-equipped to deal with the nuances of public policy. They (we) can equip those who are called to serve in politics with Biblical principles but we need to be careful about considering ourselves experts. I'm also with you on the whole "return to Christian America" thing. In fact, I'll probably do a post sometime on it. Everyone wants to debate whether or not our founders were Christians or not, or whether or not they founded this as a Christian republic. I think there is a question we need to ask before we ask those questions - does the Bible allow for any modern geo-political entity to affix the word "Christian" as an adjective to itself? My position is that there is a "Christian nation" it is the church (Holy Nation) and it has a particular purpose - redemption - that a geo-political entity cannot have. Nations are accountable to God and can be guided by Biblical principles, but they have a sphere of influence that is very different than the true Christian nation - the church.
Posted by: David | June 16, 2004 at 05:39 PM
I don’t try to affix the adjective “Christian” to our country, to the Republican Party or to the term conservative. I do take that word upon myself and I am humbly thankful for being a part of the “Christian nation”. I know that no organization, no political party, or nation can play the role of the church in this world. And while I would not disagree with your statement “they have a sphere of influence that is very different than the true Christian nation”, there is something that makes me uneasy about it.
I am not looking to live in a theocracy, but I do want to live in a culture, in a country that is guided by Biblical principles. I believe the debate over whether our founders were Christian or not stems from the part of society that denies the truths of the Bible and wants to abolish all mention of it. They want to live in a morally equipped society based on a relativistic view of the world and without the very foundation of morals. This is contrary to the way Christians live their lives. While I do not want to see our country become the bride of the Church because I know the nature of fallen man will corrupt it; I want to see our leaders become brides of Christ. I want to see our leaders pointing to our God and proclaiming his name. Leaders that view our country with the optimism of seeing it as, “…the light of the world. A city set on a hill…” Just as we view Christ as our ultimate example to live by knowing we will fail to live up to that example, so should our country.
Perhaps my theology is off in my desire to see the character of Christ reflected in not only my life, but our nation as well. Perhaps I am putting meaning behind the text (Matthew 5:14) that is not supposed to be there. I know that the United States of America is only temporal, but why can’t it be used as the salt of the earth too?
Posted by: Jeff Price | June 16, 2004 at 09:05 PM
Jeff, I agree with this statement - "I do want to live in a culture, in a country that is guided by Biblical principles." I am pretty comfortable with Kuyper's notion of sphere sovereignty, meaning that different spheres of creation have different spheres of activity and influence. The church has a unique sphere that is different from the governmental sphere.
Though both have different "missions" both are accountable to God for how they fulfill those missions. Thus, the governmental sphere has a civic function and the church has a redemptive function. I agree that there are Biblical principles that can and should guide the government in performance of its "civic" duties. However, in my mind, using the adjective "Christian" to describe a geo-political entity, comes too close to confusing the spheres, attaching redemptive significance to something with a purely civic function. I just want to be clear to keep the distinctive spheres of creation distinct.
I don't agree totally with this statement: "I believe the debate over whether our founders were Christian or not stems from the part of society that denies the truths of the Bible and wants to abolish all mention of it. They want to live in a morally equipped society based on a relativistic view of the world and without the very foundation of morals." You are correct when you say that, but I think its only part of the story. Some pretty solid Christians with no secular agenda and who are not revisionists have raised some good questions regarding the faith of our fathers. I highly recommend the books "The Search for Christian America," by Noll, Marsden and Hatch, and "Discipling the Nations" by Dennis Wood (who, interestingly, is a theonomist) for more info on those matters.
Having said all of that, I agree that believers have the responsibility to bring the City of God to bear on the City of Man, I just have some reservations about how evangelicals today often try to bring this about.
Posted by: David | June 16, 2004 at 09:40 PM
Not voting may not equate to a sin..but it sure is poor stewardship from those to whom much is given, and might qualify under the text of those who know do to something but fail to do it..it is sin. Especially when the reason is almost always laziness. Protest votes for losing candidates or not voting for a certain office due to 2 poor choices (from a Christian POV) is of course a debatable matter.
On your abortion comments, the simple fact is there are few in the pulpits who preach against this evil in church. I for one have been an exception, when the text spoke to the issue of course. This is not to pat myself on the back, but it is to point out that many pastors refuse to deal with this issue out of fear of losing a 501c3, or fear of losing members (tithers). I know, because I have talked to them and they have told me this is their reason.
I find there are few who are neutral for long on abortion, so a clear message from the pulpit will probably drive any abortion supporters away to an abortion-silent (or worse, friendly) church. The pastor will not have to face worrying about this in membership issues of qualification.
A fine, thought-provoking entry, brother.
Posted by: Steve_in_Corona | June 17, 2004 at 10:52 AM
Interesting article but you in effect further the malaise of Christian involvement in political thought by giving faint praise to the interaction of Christian conservativism. Now, more than ever, Christian involvement in politics is needed because of the cultural and social positions that the liberal left has taken. 30 years ago, it was acceptable to blur the lines, as did Carter, but today's liberals are a far cry from Carter. Additionally, your article sets up the unusual as if it is the norm. No respecting Christian sets up hard and fast rules but Christians must be solid thinkers and participants in political times such as these and it makes sense to align with one party more than the other. Given the tenacity to which the Democratic party holds to ideals that it champions and that are blatant anti-Christian, no wonder it makes more sense to align oneself, as a Christian, with the other side.
Posted by: Greg Benton | June 17, 2004 at 11:29 AM
Interesting article but you in effect further the malaise of Christian involvement in political thought by giving faint praise to the interaction of Christian conservativism. Now, more than ever, Christian involvement in politics is needed because of the cultural and social positions that the liberal left has taken. 30 years ago, it was acceptable to blur the lines, as did Carter, but today's liberals are a far cry from Carter. Additionally, your article sets up the unusual as if it is the norm. No respecting Christian sets up hard and fast rules but Christians must be solid thinkers and participants in political times such as these and it makes sense to align with one party more than the other. Given the tenacity to which the Democratic party holds to ideals that it champions and that are blatant anti-Christian, no wonder it makes more sense to align oneself, as a Christian, with the other side.
Posted by: Greg Benton | June 17, 2004 at 11:31 AM
David, I thank you for adding to my reading list and I am certain my future wife will appreciate my need to buy more books! Furthermore, I concede your point that I painted with a rather broad stroke over the debates of our founders and did not give attention to the view from within the Christian community on these men. I suppose this stems from the feeling of being attacked and the fear of having Biblical principles removed from the civic sphere of our country altogether, which I know is not an excuse.
I know that I have a limited understanding of what dispensationalism is, but do you border on that line of thinking when discussing the separation of the civic – governmental sphere and the redemptive sphere of the church?
I would certainly agree that we should not be adding to the word and commands of God and should not be making membership in a certain political party contingent on church membership. However, I see these political party memberships (at least in part) as being evidence or fruit bearing or the lack there of. While it would not be fair to call into question whether someone is a Christian upon learning they are a democrat, I believe we have an obligation to a professing brother to hold them accountable for the ideals they adhere to by being a professing democrat. Obviously, the professions are not equal and the profession of a belief in Jesus Christ is far more important, even essential to life. Adherence to the beliefs and support of a political party is evidence of that profession of faith in Christ, which is why it is so important to hold accountable republican points of view that differ from Scripture as well.
“Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.” (1 John 4: 1)
Posted by: Jeff Price | June 17, 2004 at 12:26 PM
Hey careful there Jeff, I'm a PCA pastor and questioning whether I might border on dispensationalism is like suggesting that an Oriole fan might be a closet Yankee ;-).
Its apples and oranges to compare my position to dispensationalism, I'm closer to Kuyper. Where dispensationalism might enter the fray here is that I have seen many dispensationalists who practice an extreme withdrawal from the world. Maybe they would acknowledge that different spheres, similar to Kuyper, but some dispensationalists would say that only the church, or spiritual sphere is of any consequence in God's sight. In those cases I think its their eschatology that is driving the bus, not any serious reflection on biblical principles of political engagement. Many dispensationalists believe that the rapture is imminent, so they don't see the value in cultural engagement - i.e. why polish the brass on a sinking ship.
The Kuyperian notion distinguishes between the spheres but affirms that all spheres are equally accountable to God. Thus, the governmental sphere doesn't have a redemptive function, but its civic functions can and should be governed by Biblical principles. As such, Christians can and should enter the realm of politics (and family life, education, media, etc.) and bring biblical principles to bear on each sphere.
My concern is that some Christians inadvertently ascribe too much weight to the governmental sphere, nearly ascribing redemptive powers to it.
Maybe another way of looking at it would be to look at the governmental and ecclesiastical spheres in relation to evil. The government can curtail evil by external coercion. This is good and necessary for the maintenance of a civil society, and it is a godly calling for a Christian to be involved in such things. But, government cannot change the sinful heart, it is not called to do so. Because the government cannot change the sinful heart of man it will always have limited effectiveness in thwarting evil. The church, with it's redemptive purpose, can change the hearts of man with it's message of redemption in Christ.
I think what happens is that we tend to get very passionate about one sphere or the other. Some get passionate about government and seem to forget its limitations. Some are passionate about the church's redemptive message and forget that the government's civic functions are legitimate.
Hope that helps a bit!
Posted by: David | June 17, 2004 at 01:04 PM
I'm glad that you're bringing up these points David. I wish that Christians were able to engage this issue more. Being myself a conservative Christian, after having gone to a Christian college where all 3 of the political science professors were democrats, and having many friends who are Christians and also democrats, I think it is time we woke up to the fact that this is an issue that needs explication within the church community. People genuninely have sincerely held beliefs in this arena, such as "I am a democract because Jesus came into Jerusalem on a donkey and not a Mercedes-Benz". I see very little intelligent conversation taking place in and around our churches on these issues (perhaps due the the fear of incivility- one of our culture's most noxious values- taking place). Seldom do I hear people ask the question first "what is politics" and then "what is Christianity"? While I do risk oversimplification in stating this, the issue is made difficult because of the unecessary blurring that takes place between the two types politics that run throughout history (illustrated by Glenn Tinder in his book 'Political Thinking'):
1) a politics of convenience- the purpose of the government is to maintain order within society, so that we can all live together in community in convenience. Government should have as little involvement in the individual's sphere of influence as possible. It is the churches job, not the governments, to go about the task of saving souls. While not taking one religion and making it the laws of society (as the Puritans did with Old Testament), certain values can be extracted for the common-good reasons, or as Jean Jacques Rousseau put it certain "sentiments of sociability" to cement order and good-will into our societal fabric.
2) a politics of redemption- it is the government's job to give answers to the "why" questions of life, to save our souls (eg. fascism, communism), to be involved in an overarching fashion in the details of its citizens lives. Given the history of "Christian governments" making their goal to become involved in the latter instead of the former, we do indeed need Augustinian discernment between the city of man and the City of God.
All in all, it is a fine line to walk as Reinhold Niebuhr best put it in his book "Moral Man and Immoral Society"-"politics will to the end of history be, an area where...the ethical and the coercive interpenetrate and work out their tentative and uneasy compromises".
If anything, we need to be able to articulate clearly to our Christian brothers and sisters, and the world at large, that the conservative agenda is and will do better at that task, than the post-modern, nihilist and ultimately regressive tendencies of the democratic parties political platform.
Posted by: Doni W. | June 17, 2004 at 01:10 PM
Greetings!
As a Southern Presbyterian who has never heard anyone tawk about Southern Presbyterians, I found my eyeballs sucked into various grafs in this-here article o' yourn, mostly to do with mine own kind...being that, again, of which you spoke...and quite eleemosynarily I might add -- were I not, by nature, subtractive. And so the dice crumbles.
But back to said point of yourn. What was it again?
Look. It is late, and my mind is obviously in 8-track mode, so let me just say this, since I have yet to read your entire exegesis:
The Southern Presbyterians I have known over the decades, and their parentage, are not the same folks who were and are still waging battles, psychic or physical, with our Hamitic bretheren.
That would be the Baptists.
OK. So I generalize. But there may be a grain of truth to that...one would need to do more research than I have done. And I've known many a wondrous Baptist, and Clinton and Gore were both Southern Baptists. Come to think of it, I doubt if any of the traditional religions could get away with such atavistic attitudes today, and that maybe the die-hard racist flocks to newfangled, although probably not new-age, churches.
But on the second point...I do not recall a single instance, in a Southern Presbyerian church, where any sort of political agenda was even allowed, congregationally, to disrupt the higher purpose of the church, which was fellowship and communion with truly higher forces. And, of course, grape juice and crackers.
Any such attempt would, I think, be considered vulgar and City of Man stuff. Mammon. Mammundane.
So the question arises: What if an issue is so big and urgent that it needs to override the separation of church and state? And can this be ascertained objectively?
Well...you got me thinking. When I get some sleep, I am going to come back a read the full text, and ruminate some more, offline.
Thanks for the thought-provoking commentary.
-David
anonyMoses
Posted by: anonyMoses | June 19, 2004 at 06:02 AM
Great post on balance between one's Faith in Christ & the Kingdom of God vs. one's civic involvement whether mentally or otherwise. We need more of this balance. It shows me anyway that when Jesus said 'Give to Caeser was is Caeser's and God what is God's' he wasn't talking about evil vs. good. He was just pointing out the dichotomy and telling us to 'get on with it' and not to hide or ring alarms. Not easy, but true, just like most things he told us I suppose.
Posted by: Balaam's Donkey | July 21, 2004 at 12:29 PM
The Liberal Label
I suppose it is just human nature. We have to label people. We all do it, and in some cases it is necessary. During wartime for example, soldiers often developed labels for the enemy. Germans soldiers were “Krauts”, Japanese were “Nips”, etc…For many soldiers it was a way of de-humanizing the enemy so that their conscience would allow them to do something that they ordinarily would never do: Kill. In order to survive themselves.
In political parlance, the de-humanizing word is “liberal”. Rarely do you hear the word used by conservatives without being accompanied by a tone dripping with hostility, resentment,…even hatred. To hear them tell it, “liberal” is first cousin to traitor, the bastard child of Communism. Never mind that most conservatives could not tell you what “liberal” represents in any sort of substantive way. In the conservative culture, a 35-year old image of Jane Fonda in Viet Nam, or 16-year old image of Michael Dukakis in an Army tank is more than enough to fuel the political denial necessary to ignore the train wreck that has been the George W. Administration. For such conservatives, the unsubstantiated “liberal” moniker is as over-prescribed in political dialog as Ritalin is for Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD). And just as Ritalin is often a superficial way to address ADD, conservativism is a superficial way of addressing the true ills that face America.
Interestingly, a growing number of conservatives themselves agree, and with good reason. Bush’s policies have betrayed the most fundamental tenets of the conservative ideology. Under his watch, the national deficit has exploded, government has gotten bigger not smaller, privacy rights have diminished, and we have become imperialistic “nation builders” in Iraq with Bush simply waiting on re-election to extend that imperialism to Iran and North Korea. And this time, the conservatives can’t blame the “liberals in Congress” for these ills because Republicans also control majorities in the House and the Senate. This trend has led Republican leaders such as John McCain, Bob Barr, Pat Buchanan and others to sound the alarm. In his recently released book “Where the Right Went Wrong”, Buchanan says, “if prudence is the mark of a conservative, Bush has ceased to be a conservative”. Indeed, though he campaigned as a “uniter not a divider”, Bush has not only divided America as never before, but also has divided his own party. Within the party there are now two primary factions: the traditional conservatives and neo-conservatives (or neo-cons), with Bush himself falling in the later category. Meanwhile, the “liberal” Democrats have never been more united in recognizing that the neo-con movement couldn’t be more dangerous if it were Yosemite Sam with a nuclear pistol.
The trademark of the Bush led neo-con movement is what William F. Buckley, the standard bearer for mainstream conservatives, calls “a dismaying capacity to believe it’s own public relations”. For example, while Bush and the neo-cons characterize “liberals” as out of “main stream America”, neither party disputes that fact that 543,895 more Americans voted for Gore than Bush in 2000. Mainstream implies majority, and Bush didn’t have a majority vote for him. It was the electoral process that did Gore in, not “mainstream America”. So who is mainstream America according to Bush? The mainstream America I talk to is increasingly concerned about the direction of the country on many fronts, and the Christian Coalition and NRA are the only groups that I hear backing Bush without some sort of disclaimer. So, let’s analyze the policies behind the “liberal” and “neo-con” labels to see where mainstream America really falls.
Foreign Policy—Our President declared “Mission Accomplished!” in Iraq over a year ago, told us that Iraqis would welcome us as liberators, went to Africa and declared it a “great country” though it is actually a continent with many countries, urged Iraqi insurgents to “bring it on” on national television, arrogantly introduced the term “Shock and Awe” into the American lexicon though it apparently did neither, coined the term “Axis of Evil” as if this war was a movie or comic book, told Americans that we had built an international “coalition” in Iraq though we have 140,000 troops there with the next largest force being Britain with 8,500, ignored the calls for continued weapons inspections and discounted the U.N. as worthless eight months before being forced to go back to them and ask for their help in sharing the profound economic and military burden, and there clearly was absolutely no exit strategy for Iraq. Perhaps next he will try to convince us that Halli-Burton is the star of the recent box office flop “Cat Woman”. Conversely, liberals recognize that just as the economy is now global, so are foreign relations. The Atlantic and Pacific oceans have previously provided a natural barrier to the United States from would-be invaders. But in the new world where suicidal terrorists can easily penetrate our borders with nuclear suitcase bombs (or as Bush says “nucular”), biological agents, and chemical weapons these boundaries are of little use. Liberals understand that we must be part of the world rather than in control of it. That we must be good neighbors rather than the neighborhood bully. And liberals understand what General Zinni (who commanded American troops in Iraq) meant when he said, “We cannot lose this war militarily, yet also cannot win it militarily”. To Bush and the neo-cons though, any compromise is a sign of weakness. Ultimately, this rigidity creates enemies more quickly than we can kill them putting the United States at higher and perpetual risk.
Economic Policy—The fundamental economic policy of Republicans has always been “trickle-down” economics. The basic theory is that if you help the mega-corporations and the wealthy be even more successful, then it will “trickle-down” and they will in turn hire more people and increase job growth etc…The problem with this theory is that the mega-corporations rarely allow their newfound income and incentives to trickle down,-- instead retaining it in the upper echelon of their respective organizations. The “liberal” economic model views the middle class, not the upper, as the true economic engine of the country and seeks tax relief and incentives to increase their employment rates and earning power so that they can purchase goods and services from the big corporations, who can then in turn hire more people. This model allows more people to prosper and live the American dream.
Social Policy—With support in their own party divided on the volatile abortion issue, the neo-cons needed a different social wedge issue to drive through America. Alas, they looked no further than that dastardly group of malcontents that had single-handedly wrecked marriages and spawned a legion of single parent kids,----Gays. So the party that on one hand wants “Big Brother” out of our lives, now wants to change the Constitution of the United States of America to ban consenting adults from getting married. True enough, many liberals oppose gay marriage as well. But few of them agree with changing the Constitution of our country to reduce the rights of our own citizens, rather than expanding them.
Religious Policy—Prayer in school, banning evolution from textbooks, funding faith-based organizations with tax payers dollars, and posting the Ten Commandments in government buildings. However one feels about these types of issues, one thing is undeniable: They represent an attack on the separation of church and state that this country was founded on. Again, I ask conservatives, if “Big Brother” government is so bad, why try to inject it into the most personal aspects of our lives, religion? If Government intervention is bad for America, isn’t it bad for religion too? Maybe “neo-con” really means “new constitution”. It seems that the Constitution that neo-cons claim to revere suddenly needs to be changed quite a bit despite having worked quite well for over 200 years. Liberals believe that the teaching of religion should be done by the parents and not sanctioned or influenced by government. Let’s not forget that many coming to America from its birth and even today came here to flee religious persecution.
War on Terror--Again, Bush is trapped in an old world way of thinking here. He believes that you can fight a war against a culture (terrorism) by unilaterally invading a country (Iraq). Terrorism is a culture that is harbored in countries around the world. Invading Iraq to rid ourselves of terrorism is like trying to rid your yard of the fire ants by killing the roaches in your house. It just doesn’t make sense. In fact, 15 of the 19 hijackers from Saudi Arabia—our staunchest allies in the Middle East, not Iraq. Are liberals glad that Saddam is out of power? Absolutely. But if we had been told that were going to lose 1,000 American troops and $250 billion dollars to remove him, there never would have been enough votes to do it. On top of that, Bush has shattered our international credibility along the way. And if you don’t believe that, then answer this question: If we had to invade Iran or North Korea tomorrow, would more countries or fewer countries than went into Iraq go with us? Any objective respondent would acknowledge that fewer would. Why? Because we have diminished our credibility with many of those countries. Even the terror alert system is a mess. In the same week that the terror alert system went up, Bush told us we were safer. So how are we safer if we are higher risk for terror? You don’t have to be a “nucular” physicist to know that’s kinda wacky.
Unfortunately, when liberals raise these issues they are branded as unpatriotic, immoral, “bed-wetters” and more. Ironically, the same Republicans who embrace Bill Cosby for holding the African-American culture accountable accuse those who try to hold their government accountable of being traitors.
So to clarify what a liberal is: We want to be deliberate and inclusive before we put our troops in the line of fire, we want to be members of the world not rulers of it, we want to empower the middle class, not mega-corporations, we respect the right of parents, not government to teach our children religion, we value the integrity of our Constitution even when it protects things that we disagree with, we want meaningful healthcare for all Americans, and good schools for our kids, and we welcome other points of view even when they are different from our own.
And I think that’s all pretty darn mainstream. Welcome to the Democratic Party.
Andy Lord
Posted by: Andy Lord | August 22, 2004 at 09:27 PM