Information about Justice Sunday at Highview Baptist Chruch can be found at the Lexington Herald Leader. Baptist Press is covering the same story, with a Q&A as well. And for irony’s sake, this story is on the same page. More recent coverage is here. :-/
I’m pretty good at seeing connections. I took the Graduate Record Examination twice, and I remember questions like this:
“Dog is to peanut butter, as cat is to _______________.”
a. Apple butter b. Martha Stewart c. The International Space Station.
I won’t tell you what the answer is, but I got it right.
So when confronted with what Jesus has to do with a Democratic filibuster of Republican judicial nominees, you may struggle with the connection. But the Internet Monk is here to help you. It goes something like this:
Jesus is Lord. He teaches us to live by Biblical values. Christians, i.e. “people of faith,” want to apply those Biblical values to public life, especially here in America where we have the right to do so. Judges affect our public lives by their many rulings on important issues, especially issues related to life and marriage. Republicans have nominated judges that are people of faith, and their rulings won’t go against what people of faith know is right and good. But the Democrats are against people of faith, and are using filibusters and other tactics to stop those Republican nominated judges from being approved. They are not just stalling the process; they are actively disqualifying these judges over issues of religious faith, and that’s wrong. Therefore, Jesus is for Republican judges being approved, and Jesus is against the Democratic filibuster against people of faith.
Not only can I see these connections, I want to go a step further. I have no problem at all with American Christians who line up their own political involvments this way. Faith has real world implications, and America is a country that allows participation in the political process in many different ways. I think an honest reading of the New Testament would move anyone with an appreciation for the sovereignty of God in history to vote and be politically aware. Christians have supported many just and right causes in American political life as an expression of their faith, from abolition to abortion to civil rights. People who are offended that Christians apply Christian values to public life are historically and culturally naive. The contribution of people of faith- of all kinds, but especially Christians- is immense.
Further, even with all its problems, I am still a believer in the two-party system. I’m not offended by talk of conservatives and liberals, Republicans and Democrats, or the United States of Canada and JesusLand. It’s not that the two-party system works so well. Uh…no. It’s simply that I am convinced a multi-party system, or any other system, would fare much worse, especially in their long term effects on important freedoms. I am willing to live with the comedy, tragedy, corruption, abuse and stupidity of the two party system rather than the shorter routes to tyranny that would replace it.
So I am not surprised at, nor particularly opposed to, a political system that tends towards two poles as opposed to one or fifteen. Yes, it can get ugly, and it frequently cruises on “stupid.” I resist, in print and in life, being pushed into all that any one “team” stands for. Still, I’m not fundamentally opposed to James Dobson whipping up his troops against the Democrats, talking politics, participating in the political debate or playing to win. None of this really has my attention today.
I’m writing because of those connections we started with, especially the connection to Jesus. You have to be careful with those connections to Jesus. It’s like this dog I see all the time.
On my way in to town from where I live, there is a store, Sharp’s grocery. Nice little store run by good people. A few weeks ago, I was driving past Sharp’s and this dog came running after my car as hard as he could chase it. In the days to come, I noticed the dog crouching behind cars parked at the store, and waiting for the next car to drive by so he could give chase. The dog is obsessed with chasing cars, and stalks cars like he’s going to catch one and drag it back to the store’s porch for a a meal.
What is the connection between the dog and the store? Just driving by, I could easily draw several conclusions. Maybe the dog has nothing to do with the store at all. Or perhaps the owner of the store bought the dog and trained him to chase cars. Maybe the dog is oblivious to all the owner’s attempts to stop his car chasing behavior, but the owner is too fond of the dog to get rid of him. To get the whole story, I would have to stop and talk to the owner of the store, and find out the truth.
I’d love to talk with Jesus about what he thought about what was going on at the Highview Baptist Church Justice Sunday Rally. I’d like to know what is his connection. Just driving by, it looks like he’s in favor of all of it. But so far, all I can do is listen to scripture, and the connections are muddled.
Is the James Dobson version of the “Judeo-Christian” worldview the worldview of Jesus?
If Jesus were in Louisville, would he be at the Justice Sunday rally, urging the church to work against the Democrats?
What would Jesus have said about the Republican delays of Clinton judicial nominees? Would he have supported those delays because those judges were friendlier to issues of life and marriage, and the issue wasn’t “people of faith?”
What would Jesus have said about putting the entire rally in the context of his church? Would he want to be identified with the victory of one party and the defeat of another? Would he have sent his disciples- his pastors and ministers- to do this work, and to urge his church to be the backbone of the battle?
What would Jesus think about the “Culture War” Christian who has now come to the forefront of conservative evangelicalism? What would Jesus say about the culture war spirituality that is shaping more and more evangelical life and thought? (We are saved by faith in Jesus, and being Republicans against abortion and gay marriage.) How would Jesus see our use of the “Biblical Worldview” to make a Jesus connection with the overtly politicized agendas of both parties? Is the spirituality and behavior of the “Culture War Christian” a reflection of Jesus himself? Or is it something else? What is the connection between the Gospel and “Victory in the Culture War?”
Does Jesus want Christians to see Democrats- even pro-abortion, pro-gay-marriage Democrats- as the “enemies of people of faith?”
I’m doing a sermon series on “Lessons From The Ministry of Jesus.” This Lord’s Day I asked if Jesus knew anything about a culture war? Of course, he did. Israel was losing the culture war to paganism. The Greco-Roman culture of the first century was ascending, and Israel was oppressed and in chaos. All around Jesus were voices saying “Here’s how to fight and win the culture war, so that Israel – not Rome, not the pagans- will be the winners.”
The Pharisees had a program. Jesus rejected it. The Zealots had a program. Jesus rejected it as well. The Essenes had a program. Jesus rejected that. The Sadducees had a program, and Jesus rejected that. There were cynics who did nothing. Jesus didn’t join them. What did he do? Read the Gospels, especially the early chapters, and take notes. Here’s how Jesus fought the culture war of his time:
He established a Counter Culture: God’s Kingdom available now, directly, in and through Jesus, lived out through discipleship and the church.
He proclaimed the Kingdom of God, now, present in power. The Kingdom was centered around Jesus, himself; not around a political program. He proclaimed and enacted that Kingdom in his ministry, never making any compromises on which was the Kingdom that demanded the most loyalty. While others had Kingdom schemes and Kingdom politics, Jesus said the Kingdom had arrived in himself. When they tried to make him King by force, he hid. When they greeted him as King at the beginning of Passover week, he completely overturned their expectations.
He called disciples. Men loyal to himself who believed Jesus was the Messiah they were waiting for. Men willing to stake all their future and fortunes on Jesus as the answer to their questions of security, power and hope. Their certainty about Jesus opened the door to a whole new understanding of what God was like, and how God’s Kingdom would come into the world. He called men and women to a kind of community where loyalty to Jesus and love for one another took priority over every other kind of community, cause or family. He remade Israel, the people of God, in the image of his own community of disciples. He created a church that was a counter culture community; a sign of the Kingdom’s presence in the midst of history, even when it was two or three in a village.
He taught a way of life that radically redefined the boundaries of theTorah. Love for enemies. Prayer for persecutors. Nonviolence. Justice. Compassion. Sacrificial action. All these things were in the law, but they were now clearly seen in a “living word,” Jesus himself.
He erased boundaries and redefined human beings in relationship to himself and his Father. Gentiles were included. Those formerly viewed as unclean were included. Women were included. Enemies were reconciled. Jesus didn’t just teach about Prodigals, he enacted the story over and over. He called tax collectors as disciples, made immoral women the subjects of particular forgiveness and blessed children. He proclaimed an Israel where the exile was over in personal terms, and sinners were invited to enjoy the forgiveness of sins that came from a God no longer separating himself, but drawing near.
Jesus saw this as a compelling vision of a culture within a world of cultures. The church was God’s project, his field, his temple, his body. He saw the Kingdom of God in gatherings of two and three, not in marching armies. His attention to the last, least, lost, little and even the dead showed that the power of God’s Kingdom was present in surprising new ways. His Kingdom was not of this world, yet it was in the world it was not of. It was not a Kingdom with worldly objectives or methods, but it was a Kingdom with wisdom even the wisest of the age couldn’t understand. The greatest of Israel’s teachers couldn’t see it without being born again.
If you keep reading in the Gospels, you know that Jesus took his culture war all the way to a final confrontation, and asked his disciples to be willing to do the same- all on the premise that God’s victory would arise beyond the death of Jesus and everyone who was loyal to him and his Kingdom. The ultimate Kingdom power move was raising Jesus from death and defeat, and trusting God to finally bring the Kingdom through the Holy Spirit.
Jesus was part of a culture war, and he “fought” that culture war purposefully for God’s way to prevail. This is undeniable. But what is the connection between Jesus and the “Culture War Christianity” on display in Louisville?
Scholars like Marcus Borg and N.T. Wright have made it clear that the distinction between “politics” and “religion” really vanishes in the ministry of Jesus. Jesus IS doing Kingdom politics. He IS challenging the status quo. He IS exerting power that affects culture and the state. But Jesus is not simply playing with labels. He is establishing a counter culture where Jesus is Lord of every realm: personal, private, religious and political.
For example, Jesus knew a bit about an unfair and hostile judiciary. Bad judges were common in Palestine. Jesus spoke of judges in many of his parables. Of course, Jesus was put on trial during his passion. Would Jesus have promoted the ideas that such judges were “the enemies” of God’s people?
It is hard to imagine that Jesus would have protested evil judges or evil rulers, not because their evil didn’t matter, but because Jesus accepted the evils of the age, but responded to that evil as he proclaimed the Kingdom as God’s way to put all things right in the coming Messianic age. What about here and now? Would Jesus counsel passive acceptance of suffering at the hands of unjust rulers? What do we see Jesus doing in the face of the evils of Pilate, Herod, Antipas and Tiberias? Not political action, but Kingdom action. Kingdom proclamation. Kingdom compassion. Kingdom sacrifice.
Everything Jesus did was proclaiming a counter Kingdom and showing what that Kingdom was like now. I believe Jesus would be profoundly disturbed if the church became a constituent group operating in the interests of a political agenda. Events like “Justice Sunday” don’t need to be held in church facilities, under church sponsorship, and they do not need to play into the fears of Christians that secularists are trying to persecute them or deny them a place at the table of cultural influence. Pastors do not need to take their role as shepherds of the flock and parlay it into political influence with the power brokers of political ambition. Individual parachurch leaders like James Dobson may be well motivated, but when they use their media power to shape what goes on within a church, something is wrong.
The church is to be UNIQUELY identified with Jesus, his Gospel and his Kingdom. The church’s concerns are the concerns Jesus demonstrated during his ministry, not the concerns that can be connected by the “dots” of various political, social and cultural agendas. The danger the church faces today is in becoming a niche market, a focus group, a voting block or a special interest group. If the church cannot trust her shepherds to avoid this mistake, then it is not well served by its pastors. I am afraid that “Justice Sunday” was a profound confusion of the place and purpose of the church. The cause may be right and the crisis real, but the church that Jesus created is not available for rental for politcal agendas.
I do not, however, believe there is anything counter to the Kingdom agenda of Jesus for individuals to participate in doing good to the “city” or culture where they find themselves. This includes serving as a public official, and of course, participating in political life. As long as political life is directed by the Lordship of Jesus Christ andthe priority of the Kingdom of God, such involvement is surely an avenue of good works that are acceptable to God. In America, however, it means that a Christian political servant is not identified with a partisan loyalty more than he or she is identified with Jesus. A Christian can serve, vote, campaign, blog or lobby….but there are limits to what a Kingdom servant can and will do in any temporal cause. There are profound differences in the methods and messages of the Kingdom of Jesus and any temporal political cause. These realities seem far from the minds and plans of those behind “Justice Sunday.”
For those looking on in Louisville and around America, Jesus was identified with a variety of politcal causes. Jesus, and his Kingdom, were overwhelmed with the partisan, judicial, culture war concerns of those sponsoring the rally. The persecution of Christians and the defeat of political “enemies” are the priorities. Are these the priorities of Jesus?
I can’t make the connection between the ministry of Jesus and the political methods and agendas of partisan conservatives. Maybe because the connection isn’t there.
Sorry, my response was directed to Dan, not Doug…too many ‘D’ names out there
Dan,
“Shumer then said that Pryor’s religious views were so deeply held that he could not be trusted to follow the law and uphold binding precedent. That is a religious test. ”
Which, given the way a certain Alabama Supreme Court chief justice behaved, is not totally without precedent itself. However, Pryor’s actions in that affair belies Shumer’s concerns.
Aduff,
I think, as I said earlier, the difference is that King and the other Christian civil rights workers were working from a gospel context, moving people to repentance and personal change before the social change. Mohler and Company are working backwards, which seems to be the thrust of Michael’s piece.
Hi Aduff,
You said: “It was because they were self-righteous, proud, and were hurting God’s people with their unnecessary laws. He wasn’t harsh on them because they were advocating particular political ideas.”
You see, I see the link between those statements. Their unnecessary laws were their particular political ideas. Include Herod in that. So it gets complicated.
Doug:
“I obviously don’t have all of this worked out, but I’m still thinking there is an intrinsic difference between civil/human rights kind of social action and the kind that Mohler is engaging in. I can’t quite put my finger on it, though.”
Mohler would say there is no difference– being against abortion on demand, he would argue, is a human/civil rights concern. In fact, I am reasonably certain that he has said that.
I’m not sure what iMonk wants, but Tom Wright is clearly doing his “history” to build a church that will struggle for his favorite lefty causes, like anti-globalization and third world debt relief, and it looks like he is having success, given the support he gets on the net.
Dan,
The difference isn’t the “what,” the difference is in the “how.” It isn’t that the Culture War folk have picked lesser battles than civil rights; the difference is that Mohler and Co. (apparently) believe social change can come before a change of the heart, a true repentance. King, Gandhi, etc., all denied that as a possibility based on the Gospel. The FOF folk are forgetting that part of the equation, and that’s why they’ve run off the Christian activist rail, AFAIC.
Dan….I asked you to not get personal, and you have ignored my request. You are now insulting me, just to start something more enjoyable to you. I don’t run these comments to argue with you, and I won’t.
To whoever mentioned Jesus engaging political groups: I never denied political engagement by Jesus. Read the essay. I asked if we had considered HOW Jesus engaged in the culture war. I said he most definately DID. But how did he do it.
No one is going to posit an intelligble version of Jesus as a GOP or Democratic party activist. Why would anyone try?
Those of you who can turn any discussion into an endorsement of the “lefty” agenda ought to be ashamed of yourselves.
Dan:
The nominee, James Hormel if you want to look it up, was for an ambassadorship. It probably would have passed on a straight up/down.
I think you did miss the jist of my question. It wasn’t would *you* appoint someone with those views, but do you think someone with views like should be appointed without those views being questioned/scrutinized. It seems that your answer from the rest of the response is yes.
Mine would have been no. Not all religious views can be excluded from scrutiny on the basis that suh questioning constitutes a religious test. To use an extreme example: If a member of the Aryan Nations – whose religious views are that non-Aryans aren’t really human and shouldn’t have rights – were nominated, I don’t think there would be anything wrong with a senator questioning whether he could uphold the law requiring equal treatement despite his religious views.
Carol:
Fair point about previous filibusters, but bear in mind that filibustering an appellate court nominee has never happened before. Ambassadorships are different.
Also, was it an outright filibuster or did the nominee die in committee?
Dan -
I read the quote in context at the site you mentioned. I still don’t see anything that would cause me to change my point.
What really gets me, the more I read it, is his bit that “through His law, and through His word, God is trying to tell us something for our good, for our health, for our Holiness.” Sure, but according to the Bible, all mankind *already* knows that God’s laws are good – and ignore them because they don’t *like* them (Romans 1-2). I myself am exhibit A in this regard, and I am a Christian (in my estimation). So what do we expect of non-believers? As Hank Hannegraff was fond of saying, “Don’t blame the pagans, they’re only fulfilling their job description.”
What the culture warriors don’t get is that A) laws can’t force people to become moral; B) even where they do instil obedience, that this does NOT change the state of peoples’ hearts; and (most importantly) C) a friendly legal and political environment is NOT necessary for being a good Christian. It was no hinderance to the church in Roman times. And it seems to me that the best Christians in the world nowadays are those in areas where they have NO rights other than the right to be arrested, tortured, and killed at the whim of the state.
I suspect that the drive to “take back America” really arises from a sense of frustration at the loss of cultural and political dominance by Christians, nominal or otherwise. Well, I say the sooner we recognize that we *are* living in a pagan country, and accept the role of missionaries and pilgrims rather than crusaders trying to “take back what was lost”, the sooner we will be more of what God intends the church to truly be.
Doug,
I completely agree with your last comment. Have you ever read any Donald Miller? I’m reading Blue Like Jazz right now. I think you might appreciate his thought processes.
Matt,
It was a filibuster in the case of the ambassador.
Furthermore, in March 2000, Senator Frist joined with former Senator Bill Smith (R-NH) to filibuster Judge Richard Paez’s nomination to the Ninth Circuit. So it has happened before, and in fact was done by the very people doing all the belly-aching now.
aduff –
Had not heard of Miller till now. I’ve just done a quick Amazon search on him, and it looks interesting. Can’t say offhand when I’ll have a chance to read him though. But thanks for the recom anyways.
“Read the essay. I asked if we had considered HOW Jesus engaged in the culture war. I said he most definately DID. But how did he do it.”
I think you were responding to me.
1. My comments were polite.
2. I read the essay.
3. I believe if you read my comments you’ll see I answered your question already.
Thanks.
Carol:
“What I find disturbing is what Jeremy characterized as the whoring of the church to the GOP…If you can’t persue whatever agenda (liberal or conservative) without resorting to demonizing your political opponents, it seems to me that that should be a good signal that what you are doing has a lot less to do with Christ than with worldly power.”
Umm, I’m not exactly sure what you are saying here, I think you think I am demonizing Republicans?? In case you missed it, I am one (at least at this moment, for the time being). I am (fairly) conservative, and worked for a Republican Senator. My comment is/was an observation from my experience on the inside. In fact, I took an informal “poll” in my work on the Hill and out of 8 GOP staffers who I asked so far, all of them looked at this so called “Justice Sunday” as purely a political move, not a move with the desire to elect “proper” judges to stem the decay of culture and bring about a restoration of society. In case you missed it, Frist is planning to run for president 2008, not to mention there are quite a few vulnerable GOP Senators now who could cost the GOP the Senate. What a perfect opportunity to rally the troops and give paybacks to the evangelical community by not only fighting for conservative judges, but broadcasting a video reminding them the GOP is doing so.
Maybe I’ve grown cynical up here inside the beltway, or more realistic to the power of gov. to bring about cultural change. What I meant by my “whoring” comment is that it saddens me to think not only that the Body of Christ is being used to further the political agenda of the GOP (reminder: I am Republican!!!), but that it has forsaken the power of Christ (the day-in-day out loving by each follower of Christ of the world around them) and His Way/Kingdom for the meager table scraps of political power.
Anyway, maybe this will spark some thoughts…
-jeremy
Catez….didn’t mean to offend. My apologies.
Thanks. That’s ok. I was just adding some thoughts but it’s gotten quite involved (the thread I mean) so I’ll bow out now.
Jeremy:
I didn’t mean to imply at all that you were demonizing anyone. I meant to agree with you. And I do wholeheartedly agree with what you’ve written here.
My comment about demonizing an opponent was about how I draw a line wrt faith and political action. That is, I’m trying to expalin why I can admire MLK Jr’s work for Civil Rights, but get queasy thinking about “Justice Sunday”. In one case, everyone was lifted up and the agenda was truly to better the whole country. In the other, anyone on the other side of the issue -or in the other political party- was practically accused of being a bigoted atheist. (And I don’t mean that as a slam against all conservatives. Certainly there are cases where liberals do the same sort of thing.)
imonk said:
“Those of you who can turn any discussion into an endorsement of the “lefty” agenda ought to be ashamed of yourselves.”
When you won’t condemn “hardball” tactics used by the Church in struggles that the left now views as good, then I have to think an endorsement of lefty causes MIGHT be what is going on. BUT, far from attacking you, I said I did not know what you wanted, and pointed to N. T. Wright’s naive parroting of the anti-globalization malarkey as my example. Wright simply can’t stand American conservative Christian activism;asked about abortion in a recent interview, he managed to turn the question into an attack on pro-life activists for not fighting for third world debt relief.
I have posted a lot to this thread becuase I think your argument is sloppy, and fails to deal with perfectly plausible counterarguments. Your position is not totally unreasonable, if you apply it to all Church involvement in politics. I have never, however, attacked you personally in any way. In my professional life, I am well paid for, among other things, how I use words, and I have never said anything directed at you personally. I don’t know you well enough to do so, except I would now say, with ample jsutification, that you are overly sensitive.
I’ll say it again Dan: I asked you not to make it personal, and you continue ignoring me.
Dan,
“I have posted a lot to this thread becuase I think your argument is sloppy, and fails to deal with perfectly plausible counterarguments.”
I have, however, dealt with the counterarguments, in a way I think extrapolates from what Michael was talking about, and gotten no response from you. Not my blog, of course, but I think I’ve (more or less) applied Michael’s criticisms to what you were saying.
“to accuse me of promoting N.T. Wright and his lefty causes and to start personally insulting me ”
I said no such thing. Take a deep breath. Count to 10. Get a second opinion?
I happen to LIKE Wright, its just that he does in fact have a POLITICAL agenda. From my theological perspective, he is totally within the Orthodox ballpark. His forthcoming “Fresh Perspective” book on Paul will make that clear, as he has said in interviews. As a biblical exegist, Wright is great, as a historian, well, he is better than most theologians, and much more interesting than almost anyone else writing Church history.
And, I happen to be in sympathy with most of the posts you have put up on this particular page in the last few months, particularly the recent ones about Catholocism, Merton, etc. I just think this particular topic is weak, remarkably so considering the well thought out positions in earlier posts that have kept me coming back here. That is not a personal attack. My theology is not AT ALL Calvinist, so I’m not a White troll.
OK Dan….I hear you. You ought to understand all the more why I do not intend to have personal discussions about whether I am Amish. If you know what I have been through on here, Michael Spencer shouldn’t be on the agenda.
I will admit, Dan, that it’s puzzling to me how that 1) disagreements with what I write, 2) turn into questions to me about my personal choices, faith, practice, etc.
Do you see what mean? (Asking sincerely)
Issac and Carrol,
Sorry, but I have been tied up a good bit this afternoon. I take your point, and in retrospect, I suppose you could make some sort of what the law professors like to call a “neutral principle” out of it. But don’t you think that requires 20/20 hindsight?
I lived through the civil rights struggles, and growing up in the border South as I did, I never saw the worst. But, what I recall was pretty bad, and what I have read since, which covers one long bookshelf in my library, confirms my then current impression: King and those close to him played a masterful political campaign. They did not change hearts, at least not ones that were already hardened. King turned the children loose in Birmingham to be beaten, firehosed and attacked by dogs becuase he knew his campaign was losing steam and he also knew the national media was present. He was counting on the pictures and headlines to drive people in the northeast, who already supported him, nuts, and he did. That, to me, is “hardball.” And just to be clear, those children came out of a Church building. They were non-violent, but King knew they would be met with violence.
Trying to come up with tests and factors that can aid us in determining when or when not the Church ought to get involved in the politicl arena is, I think, more profitable than taking a blanket position of isolation, like some pietists have historically done, or condemning only one side.
I do think that some, probably many, evangelicals fighting the culture wars are going to be disappointed. The Supreme Court is a 200 year plus old institution, and once a judge gets appointed, he or she becomes first and foremost an institutional loyalist. The last thing that is going to happen is for a decision like Roe to be overturned solely because of a personnel change.
The best argument, in my opinion, against Justice Sunday is that it is wasted effort. Bush is going to get his judges, and the Supreme Court is only going to change marginally (though not totally insignificantly.)
iMonk:
Oh, it was the Amish line. Sorry. I should have put a smiley face after that one, and perhaps an explanation. When I finished reading all three volumes of Wright’s trilogy that ends with Resurrection of the Son of God last year, I reacted very strongly, and had some of the same thoughts you have expressed here. I read two of Kraybill’s books about the Amish and Mennonites, and stuff from the radical Reformation I could find from the web. Initially, your article here reminded me a little bit of where my thoughts were heading back then.
But, as with most things, time– and reading more of Wright– restored perspective.
Sorry for the misunderstanding.
Geeeeez Michael……chill out. You might want to think about taking a few days off to rest. Not everyone is out to get you and I think you invite a whole bunch of the criticism that you receive. I also believe you are somewhat antagonistic with some of the words you throw out. Your blog though. But, your becoming known around the blogosphere as paranoid/schizo.
Just relax! You seem to be able to dish it out and not take it. Is that a backwoods Kentucky thing?
Moderator Note: For more free psychiatric advice, write Scott at the address below. He is known around the blogosphere as an amateur psychiatrist, and if I say so myself, he can diagnose disorders accurately over the net with the best of them.
Hopefully, your insurance will cover his services.
Dan said:
“Sorry for the misunderstanding”
Awww…Well isn’t that sweet
. Until I read this thread I thought a ‘filibuster’ was some kind of cream-filled pastry. Yum.
Dan,
No problem.
I would encourage you to read some of Dr. King’s writings. He makes it pretty clear (piggybacking from Gandhi) that the point of civil disobedience is to change the heart of the oppressor, to show just how wrong his opression is. Is it good politics? Certainly. But, at least in his writing, the main consideration is to change hearts before the social institution.
I’m a southerner, too, by the way, so we’re working from the same past.
iMonk:
My final post on the substance of the thread involves a quote from Archbishop Chaput of Denver (I hope B16 makes him a Cardinal; maybe, since he is a full blooded Qmerican Indian, he would be 3rd world enough to be considered for the next papal vacancy) :
“One of the lessons from last year that too many American Catholics still donÂ’t want to face is that itÂ’s OK to be Catholic in todayÂ’s public square as long as we donÂ’t try to live our beliefs too seriously; as long as weÂ’re suitably embarrassed by all those “primitive” Catholic teachings; as long as we shut up about abortion and other sensitive moral issues and allow ourselves to be tutored in the ways of “polite” secular culture by experts who have little or no respect for the Christian faith that guides our lives.
The reason Pope Benedict XVI will get no media honeymoon is simple. ItÂ’s the same reason he instantly won the hearts of committed Catholics, worried the lukewarm and angered the proud and disaffected. He actually believes that what Jesus Christ and His Church teach is true, and that the soul of the world depends on the ChurchÂ’s faithful witness. ”
Read the whole thing, it is short. http://www.archden.org/dcr/news.php?e=127&s=2&a=2937
Three short points:
(1) There is a lot of anti-Catholicism going on both above nd below the surface in the whole “culture wars”, not just in the judicil confirmtion wars. Like you, growing up I heard all sorts of negative, hateful remrks made against Csatholics, not least from Baptist pulpits. It is pennance, and the right thing to do under any version of the BF&M, for Baptist churches to take a stand against that sort of thing, and that is part of what went on at Justice Sunday.
(2) I consider the culture war terminology to be of very limited usefullnes; it has become a label on both sides. If you want to engage on issues like who should sit on a Federal Appeals Court, where judges have to follow Supreme Court precedent, you have to get into the muck. Conservatives did not make it that way. No appointee to a Federal Appeals Court who has cleared the Judiciary Committee has ever been blocked by a filibuster. (That sentence is carefully structured, and is exactly factual.) That is an escalation. Should a Church stay out of the fight becuase it has become nasty? (BTW, I don’t consider your distinction between the Church and individual Christians to be determinative of anything, nor do I think the Archbishop would. Of course, reasonable minds could differ.)
(3)If you accept the proposition that the world depends on the church’s faithful witness, how can you draw the line at the political arena, or in favor of engaging in some issues but not others? I have honestly never been able to figure out a principled way to draw that line. Will the church get some things wrong, and will that hurt its witness? Yep. That is another problem I don’t have a solution far.
Issac:
Reading Letter from the Birmingham Jail back in the 60′s changed my life. But, from reading more about the history of what King actually did when the rubber hit the road, he did not give a rat’s hind end about Bull O’Connor’s heart– he just wanted to manipulate him into situations where he would give King the TV shots and still photos he needed. Bull Connor went to his grave hating blacks, as far as history tells us.
Richard Paez and Marsha Berzon were never officially filibustered; their votes were delayed by anonymous GOP objections. I won’t defend it, but it’s not the same thing as a systemic filibuster on the part of the Democrats.
2 points:
“King and those close to him played a masterful political campaign. They did not change hearts, at least not ones that were already hardened.”
They did change MINE.
In other words, they changed the hearts of those who were not hardened but they failed to change the hearts of those who were. This is a feat, I remind you, that eluded Isaiah, Ezekiel, and Jesus as well. Not even Jesus could convince the Pharisees to see with their eyes and hear with their ears. Only God can convince the stubborn, and he doesn’t often do that.
So I don’t believe your point holds water here.
“They were non-violent, but King knew they would be met with violence. ”
Jesus was non-violent, but when he went to Jerusalem he also knew he would be met with violence. That did not stop him.
For that matter, when the apostles proclaimed their faith — now and since then — they knew they would be met with violence, persecution, death. That did not stop them either.
MLK’s actions were perfectly consistent with this tradition.
By contrast, you seem to believe that change can only occur when the stubborn and hard-hearted bitter enders are convinced. It doesn’t work that way. Even God could not persuade the bitter-enders without violating their wills, and he doesn’t do that. Sometimes change must occur even when humans say “NO!” with all their might.
African-American civil rights was one such struggle.
Respectfully,
Brian P.
Brian:
“you seem to believe that change can only occur when the stubborn and hard-hearted bitter enders are convinced.”
Not at all. Change in America on civil rights occurred because MLK and others, bravely and courageously, used their bodies to change the hearts and minds of actors in the political system who then enacted laws that put the force of the state at work to change the behavior of the southern power structure (i.e., people like Bull Connor), regardless of where their hearts were. In a free society, that is called politics. In America, non-violence could work; if King and Gandhi had tried non-violence in Mao’s China, they would have been killed. King and Gandhi were both political pragmatists, first and foremost. Not to deny that they changed hearts, but they were both leaders of movements and promoted what worked.
Dan,
Thanks.
I do think MLK hoped to change the hearts of people like Bull Connor, even though he realized it was unlikely. (In the end, Wallace’s heart was changed, so it wasn’t impossible!)
I understand a bit of where you are coming from though. I’m a bit younger than you and a northerner, but I lived in Va for many years and my uncle has served churches in the South most of his life. (He was also a Freedom Rider. And I know his group always prayed for the people opposing them.)
I think that even if publicity were a big part of MLK’s strategy, the behavior and speech that drew that publicity are what set it apart from something like Justice Sunday. On one hand, you have people peacefully and prayerfully going into a situation where they know they will be met with derision and probably violence. They quietly stand before that violence, offering their suffering as a witness to justice. On the other hand, you have a political rally intended at least in part to pour derision on the opposition and rev up the ‘base’ against them.
To me, that’s a big difference. I also think it’s the reason the Civil rights movement did change hearts and change the nation, while Justice Sunday is more likely to generate a backlash.
Carol,
I don’t disagree with much of what you say (though I would say that Wallace’s change of heart happened to be in his political interestsat the time, since he coludn’t be elected governor without black votes– that said, I do think that his heart was truly changed, and the why is speculation.)
But I do fundamentally disagree with this:
“On the other hand, you have a political rally intended at least in part to pour derision on the opposition and rev up the ‘base’ against them.
To me, that’s a big difference. I also think it’s the reason the Civil rights movement did change hearts and change the nation, while Justice Sunday is more likely to generate a backlash.”
The backlash started on November 4. the day after the left figured out that secularism was in trouble. (Remember Gary Wills NY Times column titled “The End of the Enlightenment”?)
Second, I have read all of the transcripts from Justice Sunday, and I don’t find what you say to be there in any particularly large measure.
Third, politics ain’t beanbag, any time, any where. I admire MLK greatly, but he was not a saint– he was a tough inside gut fighter when he had to be. Unless the Church stays out of the political sphere at alll times, in all places, then it has to get its hands dirty.
There was nothing exceptional about Justice Sunday, except the reaction to it, which was nonetheless predictable. Take a look at Mort Kondrake’s (a Democrat, though not comfortable with the moveon/Michael Moore tone of the party today) column:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-4_28_05_MK.html
A lot of the negative reaction is totally visceral, and there really isn’t much to be done about that. But, as ARchbishop Chaput says in the column I posted from yesterday, what else is new, and we can’t let that intimidate us.
thanks. i’ve gotten really tired of seeing the church bastardized by politics, left and right. when it seals itself to the political mechanisms, it becomes less than the Gospel, and less than than the church.
Dan,
I think the author of that article misses the point entirely. In fact, he may even pour fuel on the flames wrt why religious people with progressive political views are reacting so strongly against Justice Sunday. This event said that anyone who opposed these judges was ‘against people of faith’. It’s the same line progressive Christians (and Jews, etc.) have been hearing since the election: we don’t count and we can’t possibly be considered people of faith if we disagree with GWB or the GOP. Worse yet, it now seems that disagreement means being actively excommunicated from the ‘people of faith’ and identified as enemies.
Can’t you see why a lot of people are offended by that and why it is causing a backlash among religious people who are politically liberal and even moderate?
Carol,
Yes. But that doesn’t mean such people necessarily should be offended. Perhaps they have been so used to being able to marginalize the “religious right,” “fundamentalists,” etc. that they are just reacting with shock and fear that they might be on the “losing” side?
That does not explain everything, and I think Michael is absolutley sincere in his concerns about how this climate affects the church, but I think it does explain a lot of what, to me, is the high visceral content of the reactions to justice Sunday that I have seen, and I think that is what Kondrake is saying is going to hurt the critics of the event in the long run.
To make the point another way, Michaels post, and many of the comments here, including yours, have content, but most of what has appeared in the secular media is all emotion.
Dan,
I disagree. I think ‘those people’ (I am one of them) have every right to be offended. And it’s hardly a shock and fear reaction. It’s a fed-up, straw-that-broke-the-camel’s-back reaction.
Where have you been living that the religious right are the ones marginalized? For over a decade now the common assumption in the MSM and from the right has been that they speak for Real Christians (TM), and the rest of us either don’t exist, or aren’t sincere in our faith.
dWhen a person becomes a U.S. Supreme Court Judge, an oath is taken to ‘uphold the Constitution of the United States of America.” If that oath in some way collides with one’s religious views, a huge dilemma exists. That is what Pryor was facing when his nomination came up for consideration. The issue is only peripherally about his Catholicism; it is more directly about whether he would be mentally and morally capable of putting his personal views on the back burner in order to uphold the U.S. Constitution. The feeling was that he wouldn’t be able to.
Only in the most technical sense is that decision in any way a religious test. A religious test would be if the questioner had asked “are you religious?” and upon getting an answer in the affirmative, had disqualified Pryor.
It would be just as unconstitutional if the anwer to the question were ‘no’, but try to get elected dog catcher if your answer is ‘no,’ and you’ll quickly find out that the voters in America clearly do have a religious test for all political candidates.
Marilyn,
Bush seems to agree with you.
President Bush (in his speech last night) said that he thought the issue behind the blocking of Pryor’s nomination was his judicial philosophy, not his religious beliefs. Makes sense to me.
Carol:
Look, I do understand how you feel, I have clients on both sides of the culture wars and right now everybody is, at best, on edge.
But, I do think there is a concnetrated effort on the left that has emerged since the election to portray Chrisitan conservatives as Dominionists, etc. There was a recent article in Rolling Stone to that effect, Reason magazine had a piece written by someone who was so well informed on the subject that he thought Rushdoony was still alive, the current Harpers has a spread of articles on the same subject, and there is going to be a big conference aimed at getting media types to attend at NYU so that journalists can learn that we all want to stone homosexuals. See
http://www.opencenter.org/Trainings/Religious_Right_Agenda.html
Please understand, I do not put you, Michael or anyone on this thread in that category. I do think you ought to read what you see in the media that puts horns on conservative Christians as perhaps– just perhaps– influenced in tone, if not substance, by a deliberate political strategy aimed at marginalizing conservative Christians.
I find myself in kind of a funny situation– I have done tax law for non-profits for over 20 years, have clients of all sorts of political beliefs, most of whom are religious affiliated in some way or other, and virtually all of whom, in one way or another, have wanted to participate in the public square in one way or another, consistent with their tax status, since way before I ever started practicing law. And they have. And, by and large, balancing the good and bad I have seen, society is better for it.
Believe me, Justice Sunday was not the first political rally to be held in a Church, nor will it be the last. Looked at historically, the only thing new here is the media hype. (There is an excellent, largely overlooked in the United States, prize winning biography of Lincoln by Richard Carwardine, a prof at Oxford, that details what the Methodist church did to reelect Lincoln in 1864; if any of my clients had done 5% of what was done for Lincoln back then, the prisons would be full of preachers.)
Be not afraid!
This, too, shall pass. OR not. 
But, I do know that the lamb wins in the end.
I would like to address Carol’s question:
“Where have you been living that the religious right are the ones marginalized?”
I, personally, live in Washington D.C. In the larger culture — the culture of ABC, Maureen Dowd, Hollywood, in short of every aspect of mainstream American culture that matters — Conservative Christians are marginalized. Belittled. Mocked. Made to be “Ned Flanders” on “The Simpsons” TV show. Called “Poor, uneducated and easy to command” in newspaper editorials. Made to be the villains in cheesy TV dramas.
Conservative Christians — who comprise 20% of the electoral vote — are indeed marginalized by the larger culture.
You are in a difficult situation, for as a progressive Christian, you are a minority among a minority! “Christian” America is every bit as liable to groupthink as “Mainstream” America. If Mainstream America’s “groupthink” is that Christians are dimwitted, “Christian” America has a lot of trouble separating the progressive agenda from those elements — abortion, homosexuality, euthanasia — that we have grown to detest. In fact, one sometimes wonders what is LEFT of the progressive agenda if you take out all the bits that defy Biblical morality.
If you are, as I believe, a liberal (or “progressive”, if you prefer) Christian, you’re caught in the middle. Christians (the majority of whom are conservative, for far too many liberals have simply abandoned the faith) will tend to tar you with the same brush as the rest of the mainstream culture — as a sellout to the forces of darkness. Meanwhile, the mainstream culture wishes to tar you with the same brush as the rest of the “Christians” — as some caveperson who wants women in burkhas or whatever.
Remaining true to your principles — as a progressive and a Christian — will not be easy. Especially since the majority of progressives and the majority of Christians are pulling away from each other as fast as they can.
This is not, btw, entirely due to the Christians. It is in the political interest of people who do not like Christianity to tar all Christians with the same brush –as right-wing neanderthals, the better to marginalize their faith and beliefs. Left-wing Christians are marginalized by both sides — by right-wing Christians because of their left-wing politics, by left-wing seculars because of their Christian faith. The position of being a progressive/liberal Christian becomes increasingly untenable.
But so? It’s always been difficult to stay sane in a mad world. “Things fall apart, the center cannot hold”.
If it makes you feel better, I struggle with some of those issues as a renegade charismatic. I find myself trapped in a world where charisma increasingly means “health and wealth” silliness — but the only alternative are reformed types who don’t believe in charisma at all! I don’t accept either perspective, and I am marginalized by both communities.
What can I say? We both have to walk where our consciences lead us — and sometimes that means having mud thrown at us by BOTH sides. The one thing we can take comfort in is that God accepts our profession of faith, and He will accept us when no one else will.
I will pray for ya. BTW, are you the Carol I know from CHR?
Respectfully,
Brian P.
Carol:
What Brian said.
Re: the emerging, coming to a main stream media outlet near you, dominionist slur:
http://nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz200504280758.asp
I go to a Baptist church that ordains women, and has for years (I am not sure exactly when the decision was made, as I was living in Orlando for most of the 90′s, but I’m fine with it.) I’m probably, politically, one of the most conservative people in the church, but my theology is eclectic and questioning. We stay together because we love Jesus and are committed to his service. As our pastor says, a busy Baptist is better than a busybody. It is a funny old world.
Dan said:
But, I do think there is a concnetrated effort on the left that has emerged since the election to portray Chrisitan conservatives as Dominionists, etc.
My question is how are Christians supposed to react to something like this? Are we to circle the wagons to make sure that we aren’t portrayed in a negative light? Are we supposed to sit back and just take the abuse? I don’t know, but I get uncomfortable with the idea that we should fight for our “right” to not be marginalized or defamed. I don’t see Christ fighting for his “rights”.
I think that often times when the secular world comes out yelling about how bad Christians are they have some basis for their anger. When I hear claims like “Christians are just a bunch of Dominionists”, by God’s grace, I don’t get defensive. I get introspective and ask myself is this really how we portray ourselves? If so, is this consistent with how God wants us to live?
>>Are we supposed to sit back and just take the abuse? I don’t know, but I get uncomfortable with the idea that we should fight for our “right” to not be marginalized or defamed. I don’t see Christ fighting for his “rights”. <<
As a counter-example I would point to Paul, in Acts 21-28. The entire last 7 chapters of Acts is spent in one courtroom or another as Paul defends the gospel from those who would falsely accuse it.
Jesus had one job, and Paul had another. The mere fact that Jesus remained silent, does not mean that all other Christians, in all times and all places, are to remain silent. We were given specific instructions by Jesus as to what we should do WHEN, not if, we were brought before judges and magistrates.
No, we do not need to suffer defamation in silence — but in everything we do, we must bring glory to Him. And sometimes that means remembering that surrendered lives will have many times the impact of whatever we say.
Respectfully,
Brian P.
Aduff:
I don’t think I advocated doing anything about the dominionist slur; there is nothing wrong with being alert to the metanarratives the media try to impose, just as I would be with anyones metanarratives.
Otherwise, what Brian said.
Brian,
Yes, it’s me from CHR. You posted the original link to iMonk, so you have no one but yourself to blame!
You know where I’m coming from here, I hope. You said above that Christians don’t have to sit quietly and suffer defamation. Remember that that also goes for non-conservative Christians who feel they and their faith are being defamed by the religious right.
I also want to ask you to try and broaden your worldview a bit. So much of your post and that of others here seems to assume that the social/moral concerns of the right really are the only ones we should care about. Progressives don’t have any agenda beyond those? Only if you tune out the voices of progressives.
Dan,
So because secularists slur conservative Christians, it’s okay for conservative Christians to slur other Christians? (And please don’t come back and say something like ‘but they started it!’ I’m a Mom, so you know what my reaction to that is going be.
)
I guarantee you that for every one of those articles, I can find something equivalent or worse form a conservative Christian media source ‘putting horns’ on anyone who is not part of their camp. And that is my objection to Justice Sunday and it’s like. NOT that churches are participating in politics. I think that can be fine. It’s HOW the churches are participating – by declaring everyone on the opposite side of a political issue to be enemies. The Anne Lamott quote at the top of BHT today says it all.
aduff wrote: “My question is how are Christians supposed to react to something like this? Are we to circle the wagons to make sure that we aren’t portrayed in a negative light? Are we supposed to sit back and just take the abuse? [...] I think that often times when the secular world comes out yelling about how bad Christians are they have some basis for their anger.”
You’ve hit the nail on the head on that one, aduff, and that’s why I answer your question this way: the way Christians should react to slanderous stereotypes is to find those Christians who actually _fit_ the foul stereotypes — they’re out there, and we all know it — and take the fight to them.
When the nutballs at Operation Rescue bomb abortion clinics (or approve of those who do), all we do is sit at home and whine, “But they don’t represent the rest of us! Someone go on TV and make it clear that we’re not like that!” What we _should_ do is have 8,000,000 Christians jamming the phonelines at talk shows around the country. Or better still, on the terrorists’ doorstep with picket signs that say “You’re No Followers Of Christ.”
The “world at large” believes that, because we’re silent, we’re either complicit with them or too afraid or confused to say anything. If any of those things are true, then I’d say we’re just as guilty as Pilate — washing our hands as Christ’s character is slaughtered.
It’s time that those of us who don’t follow Pat Robertson and his ilk start making some noise of our own.
Carol,
You asked “So because secularists slur conservative Christians, it’s okay for conservative Christians to slur other Christians?”
I don’t think I ever said that. I do believe that much of the “Christians are dangerous totalitarians” theme of some of (not yours) the reactions to Justice Sunday is part of a cooridnated effort to drive conservative Christians out of the public square. The other way for those who were convinced that they lost the last election because of the “moral values” voters to deal with the problem would have been to engage with the issues that concern folks who fit that label. Hillary Clinton is smart enough to be heading in that direction, and even though I would not vote for her, I have no doubt that she is every bit the sincere mainstream Methodist she claims to be. All I am saying when pointing out the emerging dominionist slur is that the engagement alternative has been rejected by much of the media.
And, BTW, I am in full agreement with the post above about the duty to go after the real extremists. I jumped all over the minister who runs Jollyblogger for posting a headline on the Schiavo affair that could have been written by Randall Terry.
The old Chinese curse– may you live in interesting times– holds.
Carol
The Lamott quote is gone, sorry I missed it. I’ve read both of her non-fiction books– the story of her conversion is great. I think it is the only time I have ever read r heard someone’s conversion testimony and laughed so hard I was hurting.
Dan,
The Lamott quote was
“…you can safely assume you’ve created
God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.”
As much as you see a concerted effort to run conservative Christians out of the public square, a lot fo the rest of us see a conserted effort by (some, not you) conservative Christians to demonize anyone who disagrees with them. That’s also a silencing tactic. Both efforts at dividing and tossing mud at others need to be resisted.