Brian McLaren, noted leader of the Emergent Church movement, has started an interesting two parter on Faith & Politics after the Religious Right. He makes some good observations, but I think he is a little too dismissive of the accomplishments and virtues of the Christian right, and the article is too short on details. He recommends that we must change or die, though not in the entirely leftist, gay-affirming liberal sense that a Spong has done.
Below, I answer one of McLaren’s points – that the religious right has left a bad taste in many people’s mouths.
This is somewhat true, and somewhat fabricated by the reactionary,
theocracy-phobic, left-leaning media and politicians.
How the religious
right has contributed to the bad taste people have about it:
1. The religious right (RR) have not always used gentle language when
morally disagreeing
Of course, this accusation could be leveled at both ends of the political spectrum, but we have not always been gracious in our criticisms of our opponents. We probably ought to think more like Tom Wells recommends in On the Ethics of Controversy
2. The religious right has often abused their power and pushed non-egalitarian legislation
Some of the solutions we are pushing are probably extreme and not really the righteous solutions. For example, we may hold the conviction that homosexuality is sinful and should not be sanctioned by government. However, we may go too far and push for criminalizing it (sodomy laws), rather than asking government to be neutral.
Same arguments go for school prayer. Maybe we should push to allow students
to engage in private prayer and bible clubs, and even evangelizing at school, but enforcing or allowing sectarian public prayer at events, allowing evangelism in the wrong contexts, and showing favoritism in the use of school facilities is not right.
3. The religious right has leaned too much towards legislation and not enough towards service and education
If we want to truly change society, we can’t just do it by forcing righteousness on others via the law. That is rightly called fascism. We must do the harder work of changing hearts and minds via education and public reason, and we must also engage ourselves in service that lessens the burden of those whom we want to change.
For example, in the early days of the Moral Majority, Jerry Falwell was very focused on overturning Roe v. Wade, and reducing abortion. But he soon realized that he was taking away one avenue for young girls with unwanted pregnancy, but wasn’t offering them another way. So he pulled back his legislative lobbying efforts and focused on building the network of Pregnancy Support Centers – he documented his change of mind in his book If I Should Die Before I Wake (1986).
Not that we should abandon working in the legislative arena, but we should balance it, maybe even lead with, acts of service and education.
How the left-leaning media has contributed to the bad taste:
1. The media has steadfastly focused on the extreme and negative of the RR
Unfortunately, you see a lot more of the Fred Phelps of the world on TV than the Bill Hybels. The anti-religious, anti-Christian, and liberal bias of the media, despite some notable exceptions, is a well chronicled epidemic. They love the right-wing scandals, but largely ignore the success stories. But that’s partly the nature of our current news media in general – scandal sells, good news does not.
2. the media has largely ignored the contributions of the RR
One of the most interesting stories of recent memory is how, in the wake of the hurricane Katrina disaster, as well as the 2004 tsunami that ravaged the coasts of Asia was the overwhelming and substantial conservative Christian response, noted even by Homeland Security (PDF report). Sure, liberal Christians and non-religious people have contributed, but the huge contribution of the “religious right” is almost totally ignored.
3. the media has bought into the abuse of the words “hate” and “phobic” when describing the moral disapproval of the RR
Don’t need to belabor this point, but the abuse of the words hate and phobic are part of the demonization of all opposition to leftist ideas.
4. the media confuses Islamofascists murderers and committed Christians involved in shaping public policy
Those who follow the intellectual majesty of Rosie O’Donnel agree that the religious right is really the same thing as the Taliban. Unbelievable but true.
CONCLUSION
We have certainly earned some of the ire we relieve, and we should be self-reflective, repentant, and willing to improve our approach and enrich it with genuine charity.
And we should remember that to some extent, no matter what we do as
Christians, we will be scorned for having a biblical viewpoint. As
Jesus said in John 15:18-20:
If the world hates you, you know that it hated Me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own. Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. Remember the word that I said to you, ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you. If they kept My word, they will keep yours also.
Hi Seeker:
It's a pet pieve of mine, so obviously not your fault, but i object to the use of the term "leftist" for social or theological liberalism. I would reserve the label for economic themes. I am a leftist for example, supporting as I do a form of democratic market socialism advanced by the Yugoslavian economist Yaroslav Vanek:-) It annoys me when some of my liberal friends have been willing to tolerate all kinds of assaults against the working class and the New Deal, but dare threaten any hindrance against a woman's right to choose and they act like the fascists are at the gate.
your friend
keith
I guess I do that a lot, and it is a blunt descriptor, but it's also a nice collective term (pun intended) for a bunch of associated doctrines and ideas. It's actually work to find the exact descriptor that makes everyone happy, and even harder to find one that represents the common groupings of "liberal" ideas.
O'Reilly commonly uses the term "secular progressives," and maybe that's more accurate. But I'll try to be exact, since the left, like the right, is not a monolith.
I understand what Rosie is saying. Think of the worship songs we sing – if we weren't on this side of it they would be as freaky to us as the Taliban's children's story. What songs do we teach our children in church? "oh to know the power of your risen life, and to know you in your suffering to become like you, in your death… Grahm Kendrick "There is a love stronger than death, there is a hope that goes beyond the grave" Paul Oakley We live for Jesus, die for self… etc, etc. Just like anything radical these things taken literally can be dangerous, or it can be a beautiful time of worship with ones savior if there is understanding there. Just like the Jihad has taken Islam belief's and gone out of balance with things that might not be for literal translation. It can happen in our own religion. My personal gripe is that politics and religion are being melded together and this will only lead to ruin for the Christian church. Our push for our own freedoms will end with our freedoms being taken away. What did Jesus say in the Bible? This is not Old Testament times… Jesus came and he gave us New Testament instructions and none of us are following it. Turn the other cheek… the greatest of these is love, etc. Just my opinion… and boy it's not the popular one… every Christian wants a war and I don't see that written anywhere.
Hi Jo Jo
Excellent points. I've been reading a lot of John Howard Yoder lately (he was a Mennonite ethicist who advocated Christian pacifism) and one of the dangers he sees for the Christian church is what he calls Constantinianism–after the Roman emperor who made Christianity the official state religion. He objects to the idea that Christians are supposed to use the power of government to force people to obey God's way. Christ taught something different, he says, Christ taught us the way of the cross, not the sword. Another author who has written similarly is Gregory A Boyd.
One thing though: I don't believe that the radical Gospel taught by Christ is dangerous at all. jesus taught us to offer the Gospel and leave if it isn't accepted. Turning the other cheek, loving all your neighbors including your enemies, that doesn't seem like it poses a danger to those around us. IMO what's dangerous is the idea that we human beings can calculate when it's OK to kill other people. That's the shared philosophy of Al Q'aida and George Bush, of the North Koreans and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. It is the engine of all the Holocausts of human history.
your friend
Keith
I guess it's understandable to a small extent, since we even sing militaristic songs about spiritual warfare, but these people purposely misunderstand those as similar.
I mean, if they put our songs and our actions together, they would see that "onward Christian soldiers" has nothing to do with Jihad. Again, it may be understandable, but what's really going on, IMO, is that they have lost their ability to discern between good and evil (see Romans 1), and are purposely misunderstanding, being obtuse, and warped by their hatred for what is right, and their hatred for the righteous laws of God, which convict them of sin. They might not realize that this is going on, but it is.
ust like the Jihad has taken Islam belief's and gone out of balance with things that might not be for literal translation.
The thing is, if you look at the life of Mohammed and Islam through the centuries, and if you read the Koran with intellectual honesty, I think you will find that the terrorists ARE being faithful to Islam. The difference is that Christianity teaches love and truth, while Islam teaches oppression and murder.
I think this is part of the misunderstanding – people want to make excuses for Islam, like Nazi apologists did (and I'm not making that simile lightly), since they "mean well." Except that they don't (they hate the Jews), and the prescribed means of converting the world is via force if you don't submit willingly.
Not so Christianity, or Judaism, despite whatever OT wars there were. So what I am saying is that this comparison of Islam and fundamental Christianity, where you conclude that they are roughly similar, is waay off the mark, and if you look at it with anything more than superficial rigor, the similarities melt away, with xianity being a religion of mercy and truth, and Islam being one of hatred, murder, and oppression.
Again, I think the misunderstanding is understandable, but it's not based on truth, but on twisting the teachings and histories of both faiths. Islam is purely demonic, and that's why, since it's inception, it has spread by terror and force of arms. It is humanity's biggest enemy, and will be until Jesus returns.
"One thing though: I don't believe that the radical Gospel taught by Christ is dangerous at all. Jesus taught us to offer the Gospel and leave if it isn't accepted. Turning the other cheek, loving all your neighbors including your enemies, that doesn't seem like it poses a danger to those around us. IMO what's dangerous is the idea that we human beings can calculate when it's OK to kill other people. That's the shared philosophy of Al Q'aida and George Bush, of the North Koreans and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. It is the engine of all the Holocausts of human history."
Yay! Totally agree with this comment! Go Keith =)
It's sad that this modern Christianity is showing another face to the world. Is it giving us a bad name? Yes, I think so, and not showing how a true example should be. "They will know we are Christians by our love, by our love… they will know we are Christians by our love."
Hi Seeker:
The thing is, if you look at the life of Mohammed and Islam through the centuries, and if you read the Koran with intellectual honesty, I think you will find that the terrorists ARE being faithful to Islam. The difference is that Christianity teaches love and truth, while Islam teaches oppression and murder.
Maybe this is a definitional semantic type thing. How does one determine what Islam is? By how we non-muslims read the Q'uran? By how Bin Laden reads it? By how Yusuf Islam (formerly Cat Stevens) reads it? By how the moderate Muslim intellectuals read it? I would suggest that it is an error to condemn the belief-system promoted by the vast majority of moderate, peaceful Muslims by referring to readings and Q'uranic interpretations that conflict with their moderate beliefs. To say that their Islam isn't the real Islam is to get focused on meaningless labeling. We Christians agree with the moderates that God doesn't support Al Q'aida brand jihad–debates about what Muhammed really thought is a silly distraction or a mere historical curiosity, IMO.
your friend
Keith