Riffs: 03:15:09: How the Left Perceives Evangelicals: Change? Really?
March 15, 2009 by iMonk
I rarely write about politics, but this “Riff” is a bit of an intersection between evangelicalism and the left-leaning media.
Pam Chamberlain’s piece on young Evangelicals shifting leftward first appeared in the proudly left journal, The Public Eye. It’s reproduced here on AlterNet.
The first thing I want to say is that, until recently, I’ve purposely not listened to the left-leaning internet commenting community because it seems to be dominated by extreme voices. The comments to this piece will verify that. The levels of ignorance, vitriol and vengeance fantasies are amazing.
But at the same time, I’ve also avoided the extreme political right. I find both to be unproductive, ignorant and unrelated to my own political views.
Pam Chamberlain has discovered that some evangelicals don’t fit the caricature she’s always believed. She calls it change, and some of what she sees is change, and I predict it will continue and intensify. But guess what lefty folk? The diversity of evangelical political beliefs has always been there.
As a conservative, I believe in the rule of law, the constitution, the legitimacy of elections and a judiciary that doesn’t attempt to run the country. As a libertarian-leaning conservative, I believe in limited government, freedom and individual rights. As a Christian, I’m convinced of the moral values rooted in the character and law of God. I do not expect government to echo these, but I also believe God will judge the world by his standards, not ours, no matter how passionately we feel about them.
I cannot compromise the essentials of my worldview and still have a Christ-centered faith. Issues like gay marriage go back to essential components of the Biblical narrative. These are not matters where Christians can simply “decide to be tolerant.” Toleration is a value that is expressed in secular government, but not in the Kingdom of God. These aren’t issues where we can say “Well the Bible accepted slavery, so I can accept gay marriage.” The way those two issues are viewed in scripture is radically different. We can’t use the Bible as a wax nose, and many of us are aware of the dangers and costs of doing exactly that.
God’s truth is not in flux from culture to culture. What may appear to be changing standards by Christians- for instance, on slavery- is nothing more than an arrival at an honest hearing of what the Bible and God have always said. What we’re after are first principles, not possible constructions, deconstructions and extrapolations.
The comments here at IM this week were populated with liberals saying that I and other evangelicals need to adopt the views of “Bishop” John Shelby Spong and Bart Ehrman. Do you have any idea what you are saying? These are men who are the sworn enemies of what we believe. It is like telling a gay person that they must adopt the views of Fred Phelps and the “God Hates Fags” crowd. If we are going to talk to each other, we can’t assume that the other person has as an option the complete rejection of his/her faith.
There are any number of issues where I, as a conservative-libertarian Christian, am at variance with the common view of how evangelicals view issues. For example, I favor civil unions, but marriage is a concept defined for me by scripture, not culture. I am for decriminalization of marijuana and I am a major supporter of public schools. While I am pro-life, I’m sure I’m at variance with any number of other pro-life Christians regarding what specific laws should reflect that position. I am much closer to the left than the right on many issues involving science, in both research and education.
I vehemently reject ideas like “America is a Christian country” or “God approves of all American military action.” I in no way want a Christian dominance or place of privilege in ANY aspect of the public square. At the same time, I absolutely oppose government interference in the practice of religion and I believe that religion should be recognized in the public square, so “Merry Christmas” to all of you working for the government.
I prefer that government “help” be the removal of government interference, the lightening of tax burdens, deregulation and the providing of rewards and incentives for personal and community initiatives. I’m skeptical of most- not all- faith based programs. I’m against tax assistance for private schools (and I work for one.) I support limited welfare in most cases and felt Clinton’s “Welfare to Work” approach was the right way to go.
I recognize, among a minority of my Christian conservative friends, more than a little bigotry and racism toward the President. I deplore it and want to in no way be associated with it. I did not vote for Mr. Obama, and I find him, so far, to be inept a la Jimmy Carter, but I would have gladly voted for Mr. Romney, a non-Christian in my view, or Mr. Paul, a man unwelcome to even speak in the GOP convention after energizing millions of conservative voters. I am not a one-issue voter, and Sarah Palin will likely never get my vote.
So why do I say all of this? Because I have known for a long, long time that evangelicals are a diverse bunch. That diversity is shifting generationally, but it has always been there. We all weren’t Ted Haggard or Jerry Falwell or Billy Graham, and we always knew that was the case, if YOU knew where to look.
The media, both mainstream and internet, has misportrayed evangelicals for decades. They have decided to make Dobson and Robertson our spokespersons, when millions of evangelicals want nothing to do with either of them. Yes, millions of evangelicals are part of the far-right culture war and the extreme rhetoric that goes along with it, but millions of evangelicals are moderate and diverse in all kinds of ways.
The problems of both the extreme left and extreme right are their tactics of exaggeration and hyperbole in order to stir up support and gain attention. Everyone must be demonized. Everyone must follow the script that turns the other side into Nazis. It’s like a combination of American politics and WWE wrestling.
At the height of the civil rights movement, Martin Luther King, Jr. particularly and clearly rejected these tactics. He taught that opponents must be the objects of a quest for their transformation, and that by love, not hate or violence of any kind. Opponents must be respected. If possible, actively served and loved. Always prayed for. If their response is cruelty and hatred, we must be willing to suffer at their hands. This is a hard, but Jesus-shaped prescription, for dealing with our opponents.
I am prepared to appreciate those aspects of a person that I deeply disagree with, if their views are an expression of integrity. The most important aspect of any competition is the handshake before the game, and the civil acceptance of the results of each play.
We have, instead, adopted the methods and manners of professional wrestlers and fringe crackpots in discussing our diverse views. If we can’t find the civility, intelligence and integrity to move past the rhetoric of hate to a true respect for and consideration of other human beings and citizens, does our republic even deserve to continue?
Nice piece. Thanks.
The problems of the extreme left and the extreme right go beyond demonization. And their problems extend into the middle of the political spectrum as well.
They include an unwillingness to do a little research into what the other side is saying, and by that I mean an independent kind of research, much like we expect of each other when we read our Bibles or theology books or whatever. We have an obligation to educate ourselves yet we often consider ourselves educated if we merely listen to our favorite conservative or liberal commentator/talk show host/website. We do not discover for ourselves where the truth may lie.
So that when we get to discussing our politics, w come to the table with little more than impressions that are are derivative and uninformed. And then the shouting begins.
Integrity ought to mean that you know what you’re talking about, not that you’re parroting what someone else has said about another. It’s not that difficult with the advent of the internet to find out if what OReilly or Maddow or any other talking head is saying actually has some relationship to the truth. If we used the same approach to Jesus that we use when thinking about politics and government, we’d be rightfully ashamed.
Of course, the imperative to educate oneself is doubly true when we are cursed with media that does a poor job of independent investigation. It’s sad that it takes a comedian like Jon Stewart to get a guy like Jim Cramer to admit that he’s full of it. Evangelicals have been complicit in this, but that’s a larger issue for another day.
Remember the old quote, and I don’t remember to whom to attribute it, “The differnece between the violence of the extreme left and of the extreme right is the difference between cow manure and horse manure.” (Self-moderated
) It goes for the extreme positions of each as well as for violence.
Excellent piece.
I remember growing up (in the Dobson camp) and being annoyed when people assumed we listened to everything Pat Robertson said. I still don’t think I’ve ever seen his show.
Now I’m not in either camp, but it’s so difficult to still be perceived as such. When engaging a person in conversation about anything deeper than the weather, I feel the constant need to distance myself from the demonized image.
I think it comes down to laziness. It’s really easy to take the “WWE Wrestling” approach when trying to figure someone out. Dealing with the subtleties and nuances of people takes a lot of time and energy.
Some bloggers CAN handle this. For years, large media has largely sat on their butts.
I suppose it’s true both the right and left have extremes and are uncharitable to one another. I do wish I could run into more right-leaning people such as yourself in person rather than the mean-spirited ones I seem to. Most Lord’s Day I try to read Matthew 5 and 6, and it reminds me anew that the log is in my own eye, so. “Lord, have mercy on me, for I am the sinner.”
Thanks for your writing.
I discovered your blog after the “Evangelical Collapse” article. Love it so far.
As for this blog, I’ve felt similarly for a while, with my own admittedly odd collection of political views. I sometimes wonder if we as Christians should even be especially involved in politics. Jesus was never a political figure, and he never took political action. When Jesus’ followers tried to crown him King he ran away. So why do Christians seek political power?
And I’ve always wondered how people can expect Christians to all have the same political beliefs when we can’t even agree on theological beliefs.
Ooh, you’re gonna be in trouble for calling Our Illustrious President inept a la Jimmy Carter.
“Integrity ought to mean that you know what you’re talking about, not that you’re parroting what someone else has said about another.”
Beautiful, Michael. Nice post.
Brad
“God’s truth is not in flux from culture to culture…”
But cultures do pick and choose how sin is defined, and it continues today. It’s pretty clear the biblical admonitions against charging interest, but I dare say that all those evangelicals supporting Prop 8 (or similar “defense of marriage” legislative mandates) think it would be crazy to follow those directives, or much of Leviticus for that matter.
And each time I read through the Gospels, I can’t see how any Christian could be of a small government / libertarian bent — maybe in times of antiquity, but not in a modern world, where we are so interdependent upon each other in just about all facets of life.
Interest was a civil law against charging your fellow Israelite. Like other laws that applied to the nation of Israel, these are no longer binding in the same way. It is also aimed at a clear abuse, not an ethical use.
Naum: How can Christianity ever be conceived of as favoring an all powerful state? We’re closer to anarchists than we are to being statists.
Monk: You have again touched on an important point. While all facets of media portray Americans as members of two distinct groups characterized by extremists, truthfully, the majority of our citizens fall into one group with rather moderate and centrist views. It is indeed a sad time, that we are using words like liberal and conservative as slanderous titles instead of simple descriptions. When did we decide to condemn people for their opinions rather than talk about and celebrate our differences?
“Interest was a civil law against charging your fellow Israelite. Like other laws that applied to the nation of Israel, these are no longer binding in the same way. It is also aimed at a clear abuse, not an ethical use.”
Your interpretation that squares with our culture today. Throughout history, the church did not interpret or perceive that edict in the same fashion.
Leviticus 25:35-38 seems pretty clear on this — interest was prohibited, full stop, no questions asked…
Scot McKnight: “You probably read this prohibition of interest the same way I do: That was then, and this is now. Reading the Bible like this is reading the Bible as Story. It unfolds and propels us to live out the Bible in our day in our way….Times have changed. God spoke in Moses’ days in Moses’ ways (about interest), and he spoke in Jesus’ days in Jesus’ ways, and he spoke in Paul’s days in Paul’s ways. And he speaks in our days in our ways – and it is our responsibility to live out what the Bible says in our days. We do this by going back so we can come forward.”
“How can Christianity ever be conceived of as favoring an all powerful state?”
We are so interconnected today, those notions are bygones. Or they serve as a convenient mental amnesia. And government is “We the People” — government is us, and the real question is accountability, not “drowning it in a bathtub”.
By the same token, you want government involved in defining marriage according to your prism view… …if it’s the church’s domain, then why must the state sanction it? So, the hypocrisy unravels when nonbelievers see Christians lobby for state involvement in marriage but oppose helping the poor (i.e, minimum wage/living wage laws, worker safety regulations, etc.…).
Nice post iMonk. Color me one of those who feels frustrated by the attempts of many to say that if I believe this then I must believe all these other beliefs. That is not true.
I am left when it comes to social programs. I do not see private capital as EVER having been interested in others and I cannot see abandoning others simply on the basis of a commitment to small government. I am right when it comes to morality, human rights, constitutional freedoms, etc. I have a fair degree of libertarian in me, but more from the view that if we agree to leave each other alone, I am much more likely to have the freedom to evangelize, worship, disciple, etc.
But, all too often, I have been told by both sides that if I believe “this” I could not possibly really be supportive of “that.” I am tired of the all or nothing approach of both extremes.
Lev 25: It’s civil laws and its aimed at abusive treatment of a fellow Israelite. If we are going to make all of Leviticus apply to everyone, then tattoos are forbidden, so are haircuts and you can’t eat shrimp. Leviticus isn’t a book to cite as a general law for all people. It’s specifcially given to Israel at one point in history. That matters. Making Lev a general law means major problems ensue.
Naum: Your last paragraph seems to be completely unaware of the post we’re discussing. How can you say Christians oppose helping the poor? How can you say Christians oppose all minimum wage laws? One of my best friends is a Christian attorney who does NOTHING but work for those very issues. So do thousands and thousands of other Christians. MLK was a Christian. Thousands of those working in social ministries, and lobbying the government in organizations like Bread for the World are CHRISTIANS. Never heard of Jim Wallis or Tony Campolo? Our President is a Christian!
Is it just more useful to speak of us all as one big identical caricature? Oh wait. Thats what my entire post was about.
And what makes you think all non-Christians agree with you? Thousands of atheists are libertarian and conservative.
Millions of Christians have no interest in how the government defines marriage because they don’t look to the government for the sanction of Christian marriage.
ms
Monk: I grew up in Lexington, Ky and have lived in a few different states. I currently live in South-Eastern Louisiana. There seems to be a never-ending supply of “Evangelicals” here that like to harass people in public settings. While many people do not agree with Mardi Gras in New Orleans, the smaller towns like the one I live in have nice, family oriented parades.
There is one “ministry” that shows up every year with signs and a bull horn to scream at all of the sinners. I don’t have a problem with someone speaking their mind in a public setting, but I overheard these guys calling 4-8 year old kids “Fornicators” and “The Killers of Christ”. Law enforcement is afraid to say anything to them for fear of a discrimination charge.
I don’t want to limit their right to free speech, but I don’t think you should be teaching somebody’s children such grown-up words without their permission. Truthfully, a grown man doesn’t have any business with a stranger’s child. What is the correct response to this situation? Do these guys want to be persecuted? Is this their “cross” to bear?
This is where I’m a libertarian. If they abide by the rules of where they can demonstrate, the offensiveness of their message is a reminder that we don’t live in Iran. As a parent, it’s part of what I have to deal with in the real world.
@iMonk: your comments on interest, you miss the point, that it is your cultural prism that makes that interpretation (that is at odds with early church history, not to say that is correct…).
We all pick and choose. Scot McKnight (again I plug his book…), says it much better than I do in his “Blue Parakeet” book. In 75-100 years, I predict that Christians then will view the homosexuality debate in the same vein that “charging interest” (or any other biblical instruction that does not make sense for the times). And they’ll look at you as “wrong” in the same manner you look at Christians 150+ years ago that justified slavery on biblical foundations.
Yes, I know Christians are not one “big caricature” — but I am addressing the “public” face and quintessential conservative Christian (many of which go to same church as me). The Rush Limbaugh listener, that disdains minimum wage, poverty aid, and whose idea of helping the poor is more oriented to “trickle down” political philosophy. Many Christians do not share those aspects (or uniformly, all planks thereof) but if you look at Christian radio, Christian TV, and the bulk of Christian media in general, it is entirely of that uniform “worldview” mind set.
So despite what I’m saying here, you need to come and make the point that I’m starting with: liberals prefer to see Christians as a monolith.
Whatever. You can be “exhibit A.”
Sexuality is not a matter of interpreting Leviticus- where it’s clear what the author had to say- but of the foundations of human nature in Genesis.
Scot Mcknight would not agree with your prediction that homosexuality will be accepted as the interpretative paradigm morphs.
I’m going to take a nap. Moderation is back on.
ms
iMonk: “…liberals prefer to see Christians as a monolith”
No, that is the mainstream media presentation that dominates, and crowds out all others. James Dobson, Pat Robertson, lobbying for Prop 8, Fox News Channel decrying the “War on Christmas”, Red Envelope Day, etc.… …sure the internet revolution is going to shake this all upside down when all is said and done, but for the past 30 years, the national stage and most public recognizable face of Christianity media display has been the “religious right”…
It is fashionable for conservatives today to champion MLK, but during the time he was derided as a communist, socialist a “Beelzebub”, not a Christ follower… …for saying that true compassion involved more than flipping a coin to a beggar, for protesting against the military industrial complex, etc.…
And where did I write that I was a “liberal”? Affixing labels, again, part of the “religious right” playbook (and many on the left are just as guilty…)…
“So, the hypocrisy unravels when nonbelievers see Christians lobby for state involvement in marriage but oppose helping the poor (i.e, minimum wage/living wage laws, worker safety regulations, etc.…).”
You can’t be real.
WHAT Christian lobby organizations exist to oppose helping the poor???
Just curious on what you think about a new ballot initiative that Secretary of State Debra Bowen of California has approved for circulation that would effectively get the State of California out of the “marriage” business. Two heterosexual Southern California college students submitted a ballot measure initiative with California Attorney General Jerry Brown that would replace the term “marriage” with “domestic partnership” in California law.
I find it interesting that the initial responses of those on both sides of the issue are divided. After all, should not “marriage” be the business of the church, and “domestic partnership” the business of the state?
If one wishes to be “married”, then they need a church. The church may choose to marry them, or not. Would this not also solve the problems of the older generation, who stand to lose certain income and tax benefits if they are married by the state?
If you want to look up the news reports on this item, enter “California ballot initiatives civil unions” into your search engine.
Having the government mandate min wage, poverty programs, etc–leads to a full-on class of bureaucrats. Having worked in social services for the government, the people who get the real “money” are the employees of the goverment. Those with social services degrees have a job, department, staff–and on and on it goes. It’s much the same as the “rich” employing people–poor people don’t hire people. Public service should be that–service for no pay. I don’t respect the “volunteer” programs that provide a stipend, medical coverage, etc–as public service. Being drafted right out of your “life” is public service–which is what happened in our life back in 1968. But, this is all a far-stretch from the premise of the original blog–if we are not keeping the Word of God as the basis for evangelicalism–it’s just a big club; and, there are better clubs than church to belong to–
Hi Monk,
There are some things, and the confusion I am sure is due to my ignorance of Christianity, that seem contradictory, or at least, muddying the point in your piece. Your complaint is that the left or far left or whomever is categorizing you wrongly by grouping all Evangelicals together believing x, y, and z..(is that the point?). And then you go on to list that you believe x as a libertarian, against y as a conservative, believe some exact interpretation in the Bible is literal, and some figurative. Are you not just explaining that there are many different kinds of Christians, just as there are different kinds of liberals, right wingers, etc. But the fragmentation, as a non-Christian, seems only to underscore that being a Christian doesn’t mean anything, in that it is so hard to define and can mean many different things, like the term “feminism”. I wonder if you can help clear my confusion.
I-monk, what an interesting week it has been on this site! Your time and hard work is much appreciated. Like you, my political and social views do not neatly fit into a single box. My very liberal California sister used to ask me about controversial issues, “What do Christians (or evangelicals, or conservatives, or people in this valley) think about _____.” I came up with a stock answer: “I can assure you we are not homogenized.” Now, she asks what I think, and maybe what’s the range of other opinions I’m aware of. Unfortunately, there are many on either extreme end of the spectrum who do seem to be homogenized- and equally incapable of seeing the milk of human kindness, and any other positives, in those on the opposite end. I wish conservative Christians would spend more time in the bible (and in prayer, in fellowship, in getting to know their neighbors,and in ministering to real needs in the real world) than they do listening to commentators and reacting to the latest dire prophecy. I wish more Americans of whatever political or religious persuasion would spend more time in respectful dialogue like is on this site.
@Naum
“So, the hypocrisy unravels when nonbelievers see Christians lobby for state involvement in marriage but oppose helping the poor (i.e, minimum wage/living wage laws, worker safety regulations, etc.…).”
I probably fall close to the political views expressed by Mr. Spencer insofar as being a libertarian Christian. Practically and anarchists.
However, I do not know one single Christian anywhere that opposes any of the things you bring up. Not because of being a Christian at any rate.
As a matter of fact most of the great social changes in American history were the result of Christian activism.
I would say that your views are simplistic and not helpful in the least in a civilized dialog.
Now here’s my big paintbrush. I find most of the left to be just as simplistic and naive in their worldview and solutions.
I am certainly guilty of the hyperbole that Mr. Spencer describes.
The culture war is like a real war in a way. One side commits an atrocity and the other reacts in kind and escalates.
Just as an aside, I find Limbaugh only mildly entertaining and certainly not someone to take seriously.
Jon Stewart is much funnier even if he is a shill for the left.
Brittany:
First, let me say that I never characterized any particular text as literal or figurative. I simply said what any standard commentary on Leviticus from any Christian tradition will say in the first paragraph: It was written to ancient Israel and contains civil and ceremonial laws that apply to Israel. If they apply elsewhere, it is because they are stated elsewhere. The same is true of the Ten Commandments btw. They are an expression of God’s character for a particular group and time. That’s why most Christians don’t believe obedience has anything to do with getting to keep your land or that we are required to worship on the sabbath.
Secondly, Christian is a label referring to a belief set, not to how a person with that belief set may act in a particular cultural or political setting. So we can’t say “Christians oppose the minimum wage.” We can say “Some Christians oppose the minimum wage, others do not.”
This same thing applies to evangelicals.
Bittany,
IMonk may answer you and certainly do a better job than I will but here it is from my perspective.
There are social Christians just as there are in any culture that is dominated by a particular belief system. My guess is that many if m=not most Americans fall into this group.
There are followers Jesus Christ who have trusted (faith) in the efficacy of His sacrifice and believe that it sufficient and solely capable of redeeming us both in the afterlife and as humans.
The latter group is included in the former but a minority at least in my anecdotal experience.
Even in this smaller group you will find many colors and flavors but the baseline
1 Sola scriptura (“by Scripture alone”)
2 Sola fide (“by faith alone”)
3 Sola gratia (“by grace alone”)
4 Solus Christus (“Christ alone”)
5 Soli Deo gloria (“glory to God alone”)is constant and does not move.
This is somewhat of a simplification but the Gospel of Christ actually is pretty simple.
I hope this helps.
Interesting.
Two thoughts.
Your statement “I am a major supporter of public education”….Really?
Public education is a mess. It is another glaring example of how our Government, amazingly, can not do anything right.
I am the product of two public school teachers, both still teaching. Our schools are graduating men and women from High school who are illiterate and can not do basic mathematics. How is that even possible? How can you GRADUATE from high school and not be able to read?
Support Public Education? Yup, I support it, support abolishing it. Scrap the whole thing and start over. Heck, lets at least be honest, rename the darn thing…Public Babysitting is more appropriate.
As far as Obama being a Christian.
I think he is about as Christian as Machiavelli was.
Of course, to be fair to Obama, I think most our politicians keep The Prince on the nightstand and blow the dust of the Bible on Sunday when they make their “public relations” appearance.
Drew G:
On what basis does anyone have the right to reject his often stated profession of faith and his baptism?
I am a product of Public schools and I’ve spend most of my life working with public school kids. They were all quite literate. For the last 17 years I’ve worked with private and homeschoolers and the results aren’t impressive.
I know some private Christian schools turn out a great product, but so do some public schools. Public schools are very diverse. I think we have to be fair to the many excellent public schools and not be afraid to be critical of some Christian eduation. It’s not an “either/or” situation.
BTW, most private Christian schools (not mine) are almost all white. That’s an issue that we ought to be ashamed of.
peace
ms
I agree of a lot of what is said in the post – having said that it’s somewhat ironic watching a whole bunch of Christians re-discover the idea of two kingdoms just as their political star falls out the firmament.
Generally speaking American Christians are much more concentrated on the right side of the political spectrum than Christians almost anywhere else. Is that a product of better than averagely clear thinking, or is that just a reflection that they – like Christians everywhere – are influenced heavily by the culture in which they live.
Chris: I think the recent development is you discovering that some of us have been out here all along. Lutherans, for example, hold the doctrine of the 2 Kingdoms as part of their confession.
The media has presented all evangelicals as New Life Church. What are the rest of us supposed to do about that? We’re not interesting enough to make the news. And the younger evangelicals that Pam Chamberlain is writing about are enthusiastic Obama supporters, not anabaptists, that’s for sure.
peace
ms
*Naum: How can Christianity ever be conceived of as favoring an all powerful state? We’re closer to anarchists than we are to being statists.*
That overstates Naum’s position quite a bit. He says he didn’t understand how Christians could favor small government in a modern world. That’s a long way from favoring an all powerful state?
I look at it this way. You have it in your power to insure that your neighbor does not go bankrupt and lose his home, his car, maybe even his marriage, if he gets sick or injured. You do it, in the smallest way, by voting. Of course, you can become much more politically involved, but voting is something no Christian should devalue. I think government can address systemic problems that private enterprise cannot address alone. And I think we should be engaged in that debate because it implicates Jesus’s command to love our neighbor
We privatize that command or limit it to personal action, thinking that our right to vote and to make decisions regarding what our government does or does not do has no relation to what Jesus said. That’s myopic. We can, in small ways, say to the rest of the humanity that we care about our neighbor enough to see some of our taxes go to helping people who are in dire straights. Even if it’s nothing more than the simple act of voting. Maybe nothing changes, but it seems to me that that is a more holistic approach to obedience than hoping the government just leaves me alone.
Sam – my wife and I were missionaries in South America for 10 years. EVERY South American country has the same exact system for marriage. Marriage is civil. It is a state ceremony that takes about 10 minutes, and is often carried out in an office. It has to do with legally registering the partnership.
If you wish to have a religious ceremony (like at the local Catholic parish), that is up to you and has nothing to do with the State. The only regulation the State has is that no religious ceremony may take place before the civil ceremony. If you have no religious ceremony, the State could care less. The religious ceremony is legally meaningless.
Frankly, I wish the USA would adopt the South American system for marriage and so separate the Church from the State in this particular instance. Many evangelical missionaries that I know also think this is a great system that keeps the Church away from the State in this area.
Rob Lofland – uhm, I have bad news for you. I do not believe in Sola Scriptura. Nor does any other Orthodox believer.
I also went to a public school and a State University. My children will most likely do the same. But you seem to be ignoring a MOUNTAIN of data. Test scores all over the country are dropping and where they are not dropping the test standards are being dropped. Every statistic I have ever seen on home schooled children shows they run circles around the test scores of publicly educated children as an average.
“Home-educated students generally score at the 65th to 80th percentile on achievement tests, 15 to 30 percentile points higher than those in public schools,” stated Brian D. Ray, founder of National Home Education Research Institute and editor of the academic journal Home School Researcher.
If you have statics showing otherwise I would love to see them.
Also your anecdotal statement “I have spent all my life working with publicly educated children and they where all quite literate” is a dodge. My point was that it should not even be possible to graduate high school illiterate and yet it happens.
I could not care less about the racial make up of any given school. We are humans, period, the sooner we all get to that view point the better. Do Christian schools have rules on the books disallowing minorities to attend? Should they recruit minorities, give free rides to minorities, while the white parents make sacrifices and pay.
For whatever reason, much of society segregates itself. How many white students attend Grambling University? Should Grambling feel guilty for the lack of a white student body? Maybe they should offer special scholarships to whites so they can diversify.
All that said, the sad truth is it is very hard for any school, public/private, white/minority, to overcome bad, ignorant, or absent parents.
I object to the idea that conservatives who don’t support collectivist statism are somehow “against” the poor. We disagree about how best to serve the economic interests of the nation and the world but that does not allow you of different persuasions to slam my motives without knowledge. the past years have been a steady and uncountered drumbeat of how conservatives don’t care about the poor. I am tired of having people who don’t know me assume my motives for their political ends.
Michael –
I agree that lots of people already held to a two kingdoms view .. but on the other hand look at how it played out ..
The evangelical left hailing Obama as the new messiah is just the flip side of the regular right wing rhetoric about the end of the world/end of abortion being just around the corner unless/if their boy/girl is voted in .. and come the last election the majority of evangelicals were dancing to the same tune, including the majority on the BHT, Lutheran included.
I think I will see a great lose of freedom and prosperity in America in my life time.
Sadly, those leading the charge, will be Christians.
Many Christians just can not resist the siren like call of government power. They see their vote, their taxes, and the resulting large government oozing with social programs as what Christ wants them to do and advocate.
Welfare and poverty programs have been aimed at the African American population for decades. The idea (very Christian idea IMHO) was to “help” blacks. Help single mothers, the less educated, the poor, etc etc in the black community. Undo the evils of slavery and government mandated segregation. In other words, the government was going to make right what it had screwed up in the past (just about every point I am making parallels Native American Government Programs).
Unfortunately, today, we witness the results. The Black family unit is in shambles, Black abortions rates are tragically high, Blacks represent a highly disproportionate percentage of inmates in prison, Black on Black violence, and it goes on and on and on and on.
Now if you want to just blame Whitey (talk about myopic) then feel free.
But does God not want results?
Does God not want a strong black family unit, beautiful black babies being born, low black on black crime and violence.
Blacks have been practicing Eugenics on themselves for decades and the Government has been all to happy to help them do it.
So I would ask my fellow Christians to give some thought to voting with an eye toward results. Not just assuaging your white Christian guilt by voting for well intended programs that DON’T WORK.
Oh – and least that seem like a specific snark, I’ve noticed the same thing at many of the other reformed sites.
It’s almost less two kingdoms than a switch from a Dominionist-lite to a Mennonite outlook.
I got turns onto your blog recently. I’m puzzled by some of the points you make here, though not the ones about size-of-government issues which have set so many other people off.
You say “Issues like gay marriage go back to essential components of the Biblical narrative.” and “God’s truth is not in flux from culture to culture. What may appear to be changing standards by Christians- for instance, on slavery- is nothing more than an arrival at an honest hearing of what the Bible and God have always said.”
How can you be so sure that the understanding you and many other Christians have in 2009, that God doesn’t approve of homosexuality, is God’s truth?
As a liberal (that’s JS Mill liberal, not Limbaugh liberal), this seems like closemindedness. Along with notions of biblical inerrancy, I find this a most confusing aspect of evangelism.
Am I wrong to think of this as closemindedness? Wrong to think it is a common trait of evangelicals?
This post and most of the subsequent comments are bringing the book and movie “Lord, Save Us from Your Followers” to mind…
To Richard Tibbetts and Monk:
I am curious about this myself. I’ve never been able to form a relationship with Christianity and the Bible because the little that I’ve read seemed questionable and sometimes, frightening and malevolent (that might be too strong a term). I don’t understand being able to draw “Truths” from a book, written by men, and take it as the “word,” underscored by the explanation of Lev. from Monk. So, some things are culturally relative and some are absolute truths? Like what? I know and love many Christians, but my rationality always seems to deconstruct the bizarre and to me, manipulative, rhetoric surrounding what I’ve seen of Christianity.
About the public schools: I agree that many are producing somewhat illiterate students. I teach college writing, and kid you not, each semester some students are using “u” for “you” and don’t know what a sentence fragment is. A big “some.”
Being introspective about our failings and mistakes is a helpful exercise. It’s part of why I frequent this blog to get a dose of humility and a sharply focused mirror. These last few posts about evangelicals position in the culture strikes me as foolish. It sounds like the plaintive cry of the clueless after 9/11 “Why do they hate us so?”
While the question might expose the mistakes and wrong policies of our governments, the truth is that the 9/11 highjackers hate us for who we are. The only thing that will appease them is our death.
The attitude of much of our culture at the moment is the same. There are many errors and mistakes that evangelicals have made. We have much to repent of. However, we should expect that no amount of change or improvement will change how we are perceived in this profoundly anti Christian post modern world.
In that case, we can only hope that your bigoted religion meets an early, and richly deserved, demise.
No doubt you feel the same way about my values, and have added me to the long list of those who say mean things to you. Fine–sometimes dialogue is pointless, and there is nothing to do but fight over rights and territory.
I was in the supermarket yesterday and thinking how bizarre it was that we all were expecting our own clear path through the supermarket and getting angry at each other when we got in the way of each other. And when you stand back three paces from that and see how everybody is juding everyone else except themselves, and yet from the outside everyone including yourself is acting exactly the same … well, I guess in the end you have to sort of laugh about it because it is quite incongruous.
And Christianity is worse than anywhere else I come across. We flame our own like nobody else does. I do it too. That’s why I’m so glad to come reading here IM. It always reminds me of the beam in my own eye. I got bible slapped online the other day by an extreme righter. I find it difficult to be enamoured of the right when more people by far of that persuasion have flamed and belittled me for my views. And yet I do the same. Seems the only way we can keep our entitlements to treat each other in the crap way we do, with the world looking on at the same old same old, is when we conveniently forget that what we criticise in others is exactly what we do ourselves. Sigh. I hate this!!! LOL
Lord save us from your followers – which is ourselves as well. What a bloody mess.
I find myself at the rare and peculiar crossroads of liberal politics and evangelical faith. This discussion highlights for me why I feel like an outcast in both. On the one hand, so many liberals have an open hostility to things they do not understand about evangelicals – there were times when I actually felt the urge to defend Sarah Palin and Bobby Jindal (yes, I know he’s Catholic, but he was subject to similar attack) of all people – two candidates I would never vote for under any circumstances ever – because of the ways their faith was misunderstood and demeaned by liberals who tend to show tolerance to most other groups.
On the other hand, many conservative evangelicals I have had the misfortune of crossing paths with do not even feign tolerance. Theirs is a religion of us-versus-them, subtle or not-so-subtle racism – which I clearly felt as Obama campaigned for President, an extreme willingness to fall in with the most extreme of conspiracy theories, and an idolatry of Republican politics so complete that they will de-church me for disagreeing with a specific course of political action (abortion comes to mind here, where I am not “pro-life” enough for not pulling the level marked “R”).
If not for Christ’s grace I am quite sure I would have given up on the faith entirely. As it is, I suspect it is only evangelicalism that I will give up on.
Hey IMONK
That piece Rocks – I think you hit it dead center. I usually love to find something to nit-pick about, but not today.
God Bless
GNW_Paul
Zla’od
You seem to have dropped a fragment there? I don’t know what exactly you are referring to. But I can’t resist responding.
Christianity will be around until the end of humanity – you can bet on that. We’ve been here for 2000 years, and have outlasted anything else in history.
A little review of fall of past great civilizations will give you a pretty good idea of what sort of things are going to meet with an “early demise.”
Maybe there’s diversity in the ranks of evangelicals, but I haven’t seen it. I’m not one, though, so I’m outside looking in. Seems to me when it’s boiled down to pulling the voting lever, they’re more or less Republican.
Which is OK. The rub for me is when that political theory seems to override Christianity.
Universal health care is a great example. Our system is 38th in the world in terms of what we get vs. what we pay. If my family’s insurance is $1500 a month, $1000 goes to health care and $500 goes to the insurance company to pay for people to find ways to deny me coverage.
It makes a world of economic sense to move to a more efficient and effective model, which would have a minor Christian side effect of allowing the poor to have health care.
But the political position that government is the problem, not the solution, stands in the way of this change.
The invisible hand we need to have faith in is the hand of God. The one Adam Smith theorized doesn’t always produce the best results for our society or Christ.
Fr. Ernesto
I thought I might slip one by you.