Bryanm over at The Narrow has a nice post on Progressive Xianity, i.e. liberal Xianity. He mentioned the Issues page of the CAFP, which I checked out. It definitely needs a satirical translation:
Caring For "The Least Of These" – Pursuing Economic Justice"
The Jesus of the Gospels calls us to good stewardship, justice, and care for "the least of these." We call on our nation’s leaders to seek economic justice in the management of our nation’s wealth.
Translation: We support socialistic wealth distribution because we know that most rich people got that way through lying and cheating, not through hard work. Because the poor are basically good, but the rich are basically evil, we can not count on the rich to be generous. We must force them to be responsible citizens through governmental solutions. We should not, however, force the poor to be responsible.
Caring for the Earth – Responsible Environmental Stewardship for Today
Jesus urged his followers to be good stewards and to act for good in the world here and now. We respond by caring for God’s created world today, holding our environment in trust for our children.
Translation: We should force all businesses to comply with strict environmental protections – well, except those in developing countries, where violations are the worst. I mean, they need time to catch up to the first world countries. So what if we penalize the west for it’s forethought and leadership? These poorer nations need a hand up, so let’s let them slide a little on the environment, and give them an unfair competitive advantage over countries who had the intelligence and virtue to lead the way. I mean, they only got that way through colonialism and greed, while the noble Communist/Socialist experiments at least tried to make everyone equal. Since they were well meaning, we should not be so tough on them and let them catch up to the suprisingly more successful democratic capitalistic model.
NOTE: I actually agree with their simple stand on environmental responsibility – and I think a growing number of Xians do too (check out the Green Cross). However, I’m not sure that their Biblical exegesis is very good. While the God of creation told us to be good stewards of the earth in the book of Genesis, I am unaware of Jesus every teaching about caring for the earth, directly or even indirectly. Their Biblical hermeneutic and homiletic have much room for improvement. But hey, you don’t want to quote the OT, it is about the mean judgemental God, not the God of Jesus (guess they never read all Jesus said about hell.)
Rejecting Bigotry, Embracing Dignity – Equality for Gays and Lesbians
Jesus taught equality, justice and obligation. We accept Jesus’ call to love one another and to welcome all God’s children at the table.
Translation: Jesus never really said anything about homosexuality, but he did say a lot about love. Yes, Paul the Apostle does *seem* to oppose homosexuality, but scholars disagree on the meaning of many of these passages. And besides, Paul was obviously mysogenistic and a homophobe, so we should really just stick to Jesus’ words. Jesus loves the sinner, but he doesn’t really hate sin. He just hates it when we hurt each other by intolerance and ingnorance.
Honoring the Sanctity Of Childbearing Decisions Effective Prevention vs. Criminalizing Abortion
Jesus taught compassion, responsibility, and equality. Following his call, we support responsible, compassionate programs that are genuinely effective in helping prevent unintended pregnancy. We affirm that each woman’s body belongs to herself. No woman should be forced either to bear a child or to terminate a pregnancy.
Translation: We acknowledge that many women have undesired pregnancies, and we should have worked harder to prevent them. I mean, not going as far as discouraging teen sex or teaching abstinence, because God knows no one in a modern society could develop those "virtues." But in cases where an unwanted blob of cells is created, a woman should have the right to terminate it as long as it is in the womb. How silly to think that it is a human with rights before that point. Who are we to say that it is wrong to end a fetus’ life while it is still the property of its mother? We affirm that a woman’s right to choose trumps the fetus’ right to life until the moment it is born. Then, it has rights.
NOTE: See that they force a straw-man dichotomy on this issue – it’s the "Sanctity of Choice" vs. Criminalizing Abortion. No talk of the child’s rights. And anyone who opposes them is really trying to turn all women who want an abortion into criminals. To them, it’s really not about a child at all – all about the mother, and anyone who opposes that is trying to "criminalize." The real criminals here are the abortion doctors and abortion profiteers.
Forsaking Brute Power – Seeking Peace, Not War
Jesus knew power and he knew it could be used for justice or for conquest. Over and over, Jesus blessed his followers with peace and urged them to peace. Following his example, we call for restraint – not aggression – in the exercise of our nation’s power.
Translation: George Bush is an idiot, and so is anyone who even remotely agrees with him. Even though we are the most powerful nation in the world, we have no right or responsibility to interfere with oppression in other countries. So what if the tyrannical governments are killing innocent women, children, and dissidents? Is that our problem? Am I my brother’s keeper? Besides, that’s what the U.N. is for. So what if they are corrupt and poised for inaction and ineffectiveness? We should wait for them to get their act together, even if it means the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocents. Even if it means the development of nuclear terrorism and danger for our allies.
NOTE: I agree that we should use restraint with our military, and that GWB might have gone into Iraq too quickly. But let’s not make the opposite Pollyanish mistake of thinking that people in other lands don’t need help overcoming oppression. And we need to remember that in these nuclear times, we need to take as much pre-emptive, proactive action as possible. The old-school of reactive military action and politics is no longer good enough to help prevent catastrophes. We must work at prevention through economic sanctions, but also through internationally coordinated and timely military intervention. This is touchy becuase it can interfere with state sovereignty. Should we physically prevent Iran from gaining nukes? Probably not, but we better damn well have a way to disarm them if they become hostile. But I’m not sure we can do anything about it except live in fear and preach the gospels of freedom, democracy, and Christianity to the crazy extremists.
Extending Healing to All – Health Care for All Americans
Jesus’ insisted on justice, equality, and care for "the least of these." Acting on his teachings, we claim every American must have access to excellent health care.
NOTE: I am not sure if they are calling for nationalized, socialized medicine, or that we should just do something about the sorry state of health care in the U.S. I agree with the latter, but have no idea what kind of solution we need – probably a social/private hybrid, supported by a program of prevention education, and legislation to make healthy foods the norm in our public institutions (schools, etc.). Again, though, their roughshod application of Jesus’ words and deeds to public policy are not too good.
For a cogent and excellent start to a Xian perspective on health care, check out the excellent, comprehensive, (and long) Evangelical Lutheran Church of America’s (ELCA) article, Caring for Health, Our Shared Endeavor. But the long and short of it is that it can’t be just a government program:
Governments have an obligation to provide or organize many of these services, but all services depend on active collaboration with the entire community.
OK, so I’ve had a little fun at the CAFP’s expense. I’m glad they are raising the important issues. Now we need to apply some good (conservative) logic to attackign the problems. :D
Yeah, Jesus really would have appreciated a country where the richest percent possess more wealth than the bottom 60 percent. Jesus loved the wealthy – screw the poor.
Seeker, sometimes, you're too crazy for words. Surely you don't approve of the MASSIVE wage gap. I mean, come on!
First of all, this was satire. I even told you so, so lighten up Clarence.
Actually, I didn't say that I don't support or encourage helping the poor. What I am opposed to is seeing government programs as the primary avenue of helping the poor. I believe in limited government, in large part guided by the biblical principles of govt, which are introduced in The Five Spheres of Government. This means that govt should not be in the business of carrying the poor, but helping them regain their ability to be self-sustaining.
Some govt programs, like the New Deal, worked because they weren't handouts, they were JOBS. But many remove the incentive to earn your way.
For example, until republicans helped reform welfare to the imperfect but improved "workfare", it was a typical liberal handout system. This mentality is based on the notion that the rich are bad and the poor are good. This is a childish way of looking at things. They think that the rich should be forced to give. This is clearly overstepping the bounds of government.
There are many problems with seeing the govt as primarily responsible for the poor.
– taking from those who work to give to those who will not is unfair
– it alleviates the other spheres of social order from taking responsibility for the poor – where it belongs. Deadbeat fathers should support their kids. Individuals should give to charities. Churches should work to help the poor. Businesses should be charitable. The most the govt should do is to encourage giving via the tax code or special lending programs and such.
– govt programs are notoriously inefficient, and rife with abuse because they can not be well regulated through relationships
I am all for helping the poor. But that is not the government's job – at least, they should not be the primary source, esp. of charity. Charity is for private citizens to engage in, not Marxian social engineers who think they know better how to spend our money.
I think your characterization of my position as "jesus loves the rich, screw the poor" is an inaccurate, if not purposely skewed statement. I would rather say "jesus loves the poor and the rich, and warns that riches compete with your divine purposes and calling. To the individual, he says 'give'. To the rich, he says learn not to be haughty, and be generous."
Those who say that jesus would love socialism or governmental programs that violate other biblical principles is biblically and intellectually inconsistent, and wildly stupid.
Of course, I never argued that Jesus loved socialism. I simply observed that you seemed to be saying that Jesus hated socialism, and since socialism didn't exist at the time, I'm fairly sure we can rule out either of us having ANY IDEA what Jesus would think about a political theory generated within the last 150 years.
And as for your claim of loving limited government, don't. You love government limited on everything but the issues that you care about. You have no problem seeing a federal crackdown on gay marriages for example.
First of all, I am claiming that liberal christians often say that Jesus loves socialism. That's what I was lampooning.
Regarding limited govt, just because I want *some* government, you think I am against govt? Silly, and just picking a fight over nothing. Nice try.
I'm not being silly – you want the Constitution of this great nation sullied with discrimination. You want a federal crackdown against gays being married. Don't act as if you don't. You want a huge federal government when it comes to legislating morality; you're always arguing for one anyway.
I think you are using loaded language. I could just as easily say
"You want the laws of the land sullied with immorality. You want a federal mandate to force our children to be indoctrinated with pro-homosexual and promiscous teachings. You want a large federal government when it comes to legislating your (im)morality; you're always arguing for it anyway."
Paint me as you wish – but just because I want certain legislation doesn't mean I want a totalitarian, fascist, or big govt. That's really not proof at all, in and of itself.
I want a limited government, but one that protects freedom and common dignity. Gays have protection from certain discriminations just like adulterers and fornicators – no one is persecuting them. What they do in the privacy of their own life is fine. But if they want to somehow gain the approval of law as normative and healthy, and teach it so to our kids, then that's not pushing for rights, that's pushing their lifstyle on the rest of us. BAH.
And I don't want christianists to push their lifestyle on the rest of us either. 'bah'
I want everybody given a chance Seeker, not just you and your children and your family. I believe that America's better than pandering to Christian rightists who hate the freedoms of others when it conflicts with their own dictatorial views of what is and isn't right.
You, obviously, want only your own way.
Pandering is a pandering does. It all depends who you are pandernig to. I am pandering to time-honored principle and morality that goes han in hand with freedoms – it is not in conflict with it. You are pandering to the more debased part of human nature, imo. You may feel like you are pandering to the principles of rights and freedoms.
But freeom and virtue go together. True freedom can only belong to a moral people. Homoseuxality is a maldaptation and a sin. It is immoral. It is not healthy for society.
While I don't want to criminalize what people do in their own homes sexually, they can't push it as a norm in the guise of freedom or human rights. It's an insult to those who had to fight for genuine rights, like women and blacks to put them in same league.
Don't criminalize it, but don't mainstream it, rather heal it. In any healhthy society, it will always be so.
Have you ever heard of the concept "proof-reading"?
Of course, when you get into one of these wacky tirades I guess we can't expect much. You seem to have a knee-jerk reaction, repeating the same, tired phrases over and over, as if the looming reality of gay lib turns you into a drooling loon. I still think it's personal with you.
Ultimately Seeker, you're going to lose, because the majority of Americans simply DON'T CARE ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY. They've got bills to pay, and children to raise, and jobs to work, and responsibilities, and because gays in no way affect any of those, they don't care.
So while the Christian right continues to hyperventilate about the possibility that gays won't be forced to live in isolation – the other day, for example, I heard that Christians are protesting a new gay cable channel…meanwhile, I get at least SIX CHRISTIAN channels pumped into my house, because, as we all know, while Christians should get whatever they want, gays should get nothing – the rest of America will move on.