Maikimo.net taxonomy tags

I’m quick to admit my foreseer is on again/off again, and regularly needs a swift kick to work at all. But I did foresee this outcome; it drives much of the deep grief I felt and feel …

The Religious Right’s embrace of its current worldview and consequent behaviors is starting to [measurably] bear its bitter fruit, as identified by The Barna Group in a new study, A New Generation Expresses its Skepticism and Frustration with Christianity:

As the nation’s culture changes in diverse ways, one of the most significant shifts is the declining reputation of Christianity, especially among young Americans. A new study by The Barna Group conducted among 16- to 29-year-olds shows that a new generation is more skeptical of and resistant to Christianity than were people of the same age just a decade ago.

The specific stats identified are very interesting even though (IMO) all the more grievous because the wounds are self-inflicted by people who name themselves Christian. If you’re short of time, I’d summarize the mass of data presented with this quote:

When young people were asked to identify their impressions of Christianity, one of the common themes was “Christianity is changed from what it used to be” and “Christianity in today’s society no longer looks like Jesus.”

As a former “insider” (Barna’s term), I hope one day to be part of a [hope-filled, life-affirming] solution [that is, toward a Christianity that does look like Jesus]. But for now, and likely for a long time to come, I remain part of the diaspora.

[via Sara’s excellent post]

2007-10-28 update: Traces of hope — maybe more than traces — in today’s thorough (and thoroughly blogged) New York Times Magazine story by David Kirkpatrick, The Evangelical Crackup.

By traces of hope, of course I mean that (according to Kirkpatrick) signs of life are starting to appear in the cracks in the bleak and barren landscape of conservative Christianity: renewed commitments to love, to peace, to spiritual formation, to social justice, to stewardship, to community. I see these Jesus-like directions nurturing the kingdom of God, not poisoning it, as much recent conservative theology has done (whatever the motives of its adherents — see Barna results above).

I don’t think I’ve ever written down the basis of my religiopolitical conversion, at least not in succinct form …

My conservative worldview came to an end in 1994. Why? I enrolled in seminary and began studying scripture. My transforming realization:

• The primary goal of conservatism is to preserve the status quo
  (e.g., ensure rich stay rich, poor stay poor, and powerful stay in power)

• A primary goal of God in scripture is to turn the status quo upside down
  (a Bible theme start to finish, stated most famously by Jesus as “The last shall be first, and the first last”)

These goals represent opposite destinations. Hence, I infer that the conservative road and the kingdom road don’t ever converge.

Soon thereafter I had my own Damascus Road experience, wherein I was confronted head on, I believe, by the Holy Spirit, who said (paraphrasing):

It is not for nothing I am called “the liberating Spirit.”
Liberating people — setting them free — is what I do.

It is not for nothing that the root verb for what I do, to liberate,
is also the root verb of the word liberal.

You therefore know where my heart is.

And I have been a liberal Christian ever since.

Nothing is ever as simple as labels imply, conservative and liberal included. However:

• Night, while not always dark, tends toward darkness.
• Day, while not always sunny, tends toward light.

Look for trends in the cloud of variables.

Are night and day meaningless labels? Or reasonable (if imperfect) descriptions of trends?

Similarly, I assert that

• Conservatism, while not always destructive, tends toward destructive outcomes
  in part because of its adherents’ tendency to believe that ends justify means, a belief that invites immoral behavior. [I wrote about this phenomenon in ^EJM.] I see nearly every outcome emanating from the last six years of conservative stranglehold in the U.S. as supporting this assertion.

• Liberalism, while not always constructive, tends toward constructive outcomes
  in part because the verb to liberate often explicitly informs and undergirds its adherents’ motives

Conservative and liberal, while indeed labels and therefore imperfect, I think do reasonably describe trends.

So. Is this revelation true across the board, equally applicable for everyone? I’m not certain.

Does it shape every aspect of my thinking? To the uttermost.

2006-07-01 update: I’m pulling the first two comments to this entry into its body because I think they’re an important illustration of the (mis)understanding of conservative adherents.

Commenter Phinster writes:

Phinster: Brother, co[n]servatism seeks not to preserve the status quo, but to cultivate the individual’s spirit and allow each to actualize their own God given potential. Conservativism means (con-with) (serv)to be servant to your fellow man. Man’s purpose is to actualize their own perfect creation in our Creator’s own image.

To which I reply:

Mike: Phinster, I understand the idealism of your assertions, as I am an idealist myself, but the dictionary disagrees with you:

con·ser·va·tism n.
1. The inclination, especially in politics, to maintain the existing or traditional order.
2. A political philosophy or attitude emphasizing respect for traditional institutions, distrust of government activism, and opposition to sudden change in the established order. …

Building an argument for conservatism on your definition, which is roughly the opposite of what the word means, doesn’t work very well; it brings to mind Jesus’ warning about the foolishness of “building one’s house on sand.”

Conservative thought’s valuing of the individual isn’t as God values individuals; it instead extols individualism, which sets one individual against the other. [This tendency manifests collectively as “us vs. them,” a stance that characterizes Bush’s America yet is antithetical to the Gospel.] Hence in practice conservatism offers very little “serving with” and quite a lot of “ruling with (others like me)” and its corresponding “ruling over (others not like me).”

I agree that actualizing our potential as bearers of the Imago Dei is indeed our highest calling. But conservatism as I’ve witnessed it is not built to get us there.

2006-07-13, 22 update:
Further related thinking in new entry, On selective respect for authoritay. In it, I think about John Dean’s new book, Conservatives Without Conscience.

Dean divides conservatives into “the good, the bad, and the evil.” Then he explains the bad and the evil for the possible benefit of the good. I applaud this, and want to draw this kind of distinction, too, instead of lumping all together. But I’m not yet able: all I can do is divide conservatives into “the punch, the turd, and the radioactive bowl.” I’m sure the punch is delicious, but its proximity to the [turd and the depleted uranium] makes me no longer thirsty.

In response to today’s news that “U.S. launches largest Iraq air assault in 3 years,” MSC writes a powerful diary containing scripture plus photos.

My neighbor AdvisorJim posts a jawdropper.

Tidbits from discussion with dittohead relation:

• DHR: “How do you know that there’s such a thing as ‘objective reality’?”

• DHR: Republicans are “more Christian,” but “Jesus would lose the war on terror.”

On the Jawdrop Scale — that I just made up, that ranks listener response to smart people making sudden declamations unmoored from logic and internal consistency — I think this tops even Wil Wheaton’s holiday experience.

Thanks, Jim. Miles to go.

“Terry York sees Christians in the United States splitting into two camps — those who want to try to re-establish Christendom and those who refuse to wrap the cross in the flag.”

Why, yes, as a matter of fact, Howard Dean does speak for me.

Today I attended the small-town United Methodist church I grew up in and was struck on hearing the World Methodist Council Social Affirmation for the first time.

The possibility of democracy in Iraq must not eclipse the tragedy of American lives lost and Iraqis sacrificed in a reckless and needless military venture based on falsehood.

Religious ignorance is a runaway problem in the U.S.

The extent of my silence lately surprises even me, someone who doesn’t say much anyway.

NY Times: Frank Rich: ‘The blue ascendancy is nearly as strong among Republicans as it is among Democrats.’

I’ve been thinking a lot about worldviews lately. Electing a president, I think, is only somewhat about the person we choose to occupy the Oval Office, and much more about the worldview — the lens through which we view the world and our place in it — that we endorse and put our power, treasure, and collective awareness behind.

This worldview choice is a big deal because it affects nearly every aspect of U.S. policy, life, and discourse. And, because of U.S. far-reaching influence (and effluence) in world affairs, our worldview choice proceeds to affect every person on the planet to one degree or another.

An easy way to recognize the radical difference in worldviews between the Democratic and Republican parties in the U.S. these days is to compare the keynote speeches from each party’s convention (nod to Al Franken).

Assuming each speech is representative of its party’s worldview — and I think it is as each was its convention’s keynote — the difference really is astonishing. Check it out:

Barack Obama (Democratic Convention keynote, July 27, 2004)

• full video, excerpts
• transcript, alt

Zell Miller (Republican Convention keynote, September 1, 2004)

• full video, excerpts
• transcript, alt

(Each speaker’s name above is a link to his Wikipedia entry that contains bio info and numerous links to further related information.)

For me, my Christian worldview preempts all others, and as I find it generally compatible with the Democratic worldview and almost completely incompatible with the Republican worldview — a finding made stronger by further study, interestingly enough — you can understand why I come down on the side I do.

Now presumably, a Christian worldview transcends both Democratic and Republican ones by encompassing more truth than either alone could hope to. But here and now as a U.S. voter I’m forced to choose between these two, so I choose the nearer approximation.

Josh sums up well the Republican Convention proceedings through Wednesday night: “This whole confab has been built around militarism, the seductions of the mentality of seige and insecurity both from without and within, and the sort of no-rules-win-at-all-costs-lie-if-it-works mentality that will lead this nation to grief.”

Mark Kleiman: ‘Sometimes it’s hard to figure out what sort of deity or demon the political leaders of the Red States bow down to.’

Boston Globe: Jim Wallis: ‘The best public contribution of religion is precisely not to be ideologically predictable or a loyal partisan.’

I just watched the Bill Moyers NOW episode that’s been sitting on the TiVo since December 26: James Forbes, Jr., Speaking to Power.

(The Rev. Dr. James Forbes, Jr. is the senior minister at Riverside Church in New York City.)

The whole piece was profoundly moving to me. Here’s a place, a pastor, and a people whose worldview and inclusive understanding of faith provides a community in which I could immerse myself. I felt like a lonely man catching a glimpse of home. I wept.

In a snippet of a sermon (captured in episode’s transcript) I see one of the gentlest pastors I’ve ever observed speaking truth to power more forcibly than almost anyone else I’ve observed:

Dr. Forbes: When Jesus was led into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil, one of the temptations was the devil took him on a high mountain, showed him all the kingdoms of the world and said to him, all this I will give you if you will fall down and worship me. [Matt. 4:8, NIV]

I fear that the ideology informing the present policies of the nation are coming from some people who took the devil up on it, who said, “You elite, you handful of people with your special interests, if you act quickly all the kingdoms of the world, their oil, their land, their money, their resources, I will give it to you.”

Jesus said no. But somebody helping to set policies in this nation got duped by the devil and said yes! And the policy is moving in that direction.

I think this succinctly explains the Bush Administration, its ambitions for empire, and its disregard for life and all that is holy. Someone in it said yes.

Now we outside it must assert our responsibility as followers of Jesus and say no. (I will boldly say no on Election Day.)

Interesting that Riverside is “affiliated with the American Baptist Churches and the United Church of Christ.” This tells me the word “Baptist” in a denomination name no longer conveys anything meaningful. I went to a Southern Baptist funeral a few months ago where I experienced the most fear-drenched church service I think I’ve ever been to.

In sharp contrast, this NOW episode’s depiction of Riverside Church shows a hope-drenched place of welcoming, scripturally-aware, Spirit-led people of all colors, stations, and gifts that looks to me like the coalescing Kingdom of God on earth.

Now. Where is Riverside’s spiritual kin in Memphis?

2004-01-11 update: Wow, this NOW program motivated me more than anything else has in the last six months — I went to church today, visiting Grace-St. Luke’s in Memphis because it’s listed in The Center for Progressive Christianity network directory (as I had noted back in August).

Welcoming place, that. More to learn …

Early on in 2003, during the buildup to the Iraq invasion, I received lots of email forwarded from conservative Christian friends containing breathless adulation of George W. Bush as an exemplary Christian. One example is the multi-forwarded text of Paul Kengor’s National Review article dated March 5, God & W. at 1600 Penn. —

Though Bush and Democratic nominee Al Gore split the popular vote almost 50:50, Bush cleaned up among churchgoers. Among those who attend religious services weekly, he beat Gore 57 to 40%. For those who attend more than weekly, he won 63 to 36%. (Gore won by 61 to 32% among those who said they “never” attend church, suggesting that the former veep easily bagged the atheist vote.) …

[Religious broadcaster Janet Parshall] has never witnessed such an outpouring of sustained support for a president among Christian conservatives. “They call me and say they’re praying for him,” Parshall says of her listeners. “My callers like him and are thankful. They actually tell me they cried when they watched the State of the Union Address. Imagine that! They love this man.” …

My reaction to the January 28 SOTU was somewhat different than this. Beneath the words, something about the speech and its delivery smelled fishy. Indeed most of its assertions and allegations have since turned out to have been made up or outright deceptions.

Bush believes that God “has a plan” for him. He maintains that he could not be president if he didn’t believe in a “divine plan that supersedes all human plans.” …

The Old Testament story [of Moses in Exodus over whether to lead the Israelites into the Promised Land] spoke to Bush. He felt convicted. He began telling friends he had “heard the call.” God was calling him to seek the Oval Office.

Self-deception, we must whip it

I have a family member who still says, “George Bush sets a good example for all Christians in America.”

No.

When in the course of human events, a leader granted power and authority chooses to abuse that power and authority to invade a sovereign nation on the basis of a monstrous doctrine of preemptive war¹ that bears his name, not for reasons of national defense but for ideology (to forcibly demonstrate PNAC neoconservative imperial wherewithal — pride) and profit (Halliburton no-bid contracts, oil — greed), the prosecution costs of which will be borne by citizens yet unborn (multi-$trillion deficit²), wherein said leader stains his hands with the blood of 10,000 dead (~9,600 Iraqis³ and ~400 Americans⁴) and shatters the lives of thousands maimed and wounded (~2,300+ U.S. military wounded⁵, ~7,500 evacuated through Andrews AFB⁶, plus an unknown civilian casualty count), then that leader does not qualify as an exemplary Christian. He qualifies as a war criminal.

I can imagine the prophet Nathan speaking words like these to Mr. Bush, much as Nathan told King David the story of the rich man who took the ewe lamb from the poor man who had nothing — the lamb who “shared [the poor man’s] food, drank from his cup, and even slept in his arms; it was like a daughter to him.” [The rich man took the lamb from the poor man] and slaughtered it for his guest to eat:

But more significant — Nathan could be pointing his finger at us — we are the people. Being unrepentant in our support of such behavior — to repent means to turn, so as long as we continue to squander lives, treasure, and honor in Iraq, we are by definition unrepentant — means not that we’re “showing resolve” but that we’re being unrepentant of our evildoing, like those who are made to weep and gnash their teeth, thrown out of the kingdom of God (Luke 13:22-30).

Agreeing with the Bush Administration that black is white, up is down, that bad news is good news, that monstrous behavior is godly behavior, does not make you a patriot, it makes you complicit.

This worldview hawks a form of faith without its substance. Its trajectory is not God-ward; it ends instead in darkness.

We — all of us, conservative, moderate, liberal, progressive — can do better than this.

[I actually believe now that a critical mass of us have awakened and are again seeing black as black, white as white — and sometimes, gray as gray — whether we articulate our seeing in theological terms or not. Even so, I still have to rant this out of my system; it’s the closest I plan to come to saying “I told you so.”]

2003-11-19 update:
Revised entry title refers to T.S. Eliot’s The Hollow Men.

Another oft-forwarded writer in my inbox was Peggy Noonan, whose writing I noticed took breathless adulation to new heights. Piyush Mathur addresses Noonan’s work head-on in a review of her new book, A Heart, a Cross, and a Flag: America Today. Mathur succeeds in highlighting much that I find unbearable in Religious Right (non)thinking.

[via Atrios]

My friends keep putting words in my mouth — in ways that I treasure. :-)

Kynn observes, clearly and reasonably:

I’ve heard a lot more outrage directed against the idea that a gay man, in a committed and loving relationship with both God and his chosen partner, could serve as a bishop in a church than I have outrage against an unjust war, against children starving in America, against 1 out of 37 citizens going to jail.

Funny. What did Jesus talk about? Let’s see, according to the Gospels, he spent approximately zero percent of his time talking about gay people, and nearly all of his time describing a new social order emphasizing care and love for all people, especially the weak and poor and outcast.

Yes. The acquiescence to violence, social injustice, economic injustice in parts of the Church Universal — all in direct disobedience to Jesus’ words and emphasis — for me eclipses the issue of homosexuality in the church. To splinter the Church Universal over homosexuality when you’re not forcibly addressing the larger picture of obeying Jesus in fundamental ways is wrong, wrong, wrong.

Kynn’s minister Randy Leisey — as quoted by Kynn from a June 2001 North County Times [San Diego and Riverside counties, California] article — brilliantly captures what I observe to be crucial, too:

“How a congregation perceives authorship of Scriptures has a lot to do with it. If Old Testament is the only basis, then it’s open-and-shut. It’s more theological than biblical.

“If you’re open to the spirit of God, then you come to a different conclusion.” …

“Biblical scholarship, like law, is based on precedence,” Leisey said. “The Christian perspective has respect for the law. But when you look at the Ten Commandments and the rules in Leviticus, it’s easy to come to certain conclusions. When you throw in Jesus and the Holy Spirit, you come to different conclusions.” …

Leisey said he has no dispute with the fact that admonitions against homosexuality are written in Scripture.

“The question becomes whether or not God is still speaking to us,” Leisey said. “Biblical literalists would say we have all we need. But if God is still speaking to us, the latest manifestation of the Episcopal Church sees a different view of our sexuality than the admonishments.”

Yes. God through his Spirit is still speaking to us. Scripture is vitally important, yes. Read it, study it, ingest it. But give it precedence over God’s living presence and “still small voice” among us? Surely that’s insulting to its Author and qualifies, in fact, as bibliolatry.

The Spirit of God whispers to us now. Be still. Be mindful of Jesus’ emphasis. Don’t react. Listen.

Kynn reminds me that I am indeed a progressive Christian, though I haven’t consciously spent much time identifying as one of that label.

The Bush Administration’s house of cards, built lie upon lie upon lie, is finally starting to fall. I thought I’d be happy when this finally came to pass, but now that it’s begun, I just feel grief at how far we’ve missed the mark as a people.

Why do different ones of us come to see things at different rates?

I foresaw the buildup to this present situation months ago, years ago. Why me? I don’t know.

It’s December 2000: I close my eyes and see this unfolding of events — it looks like a hurricane seen from a weather satellite. And not a satellite loop on a video screen, either, but a live, continent-spanning hurricane I’m seeing as I literally cling to the in-orbit satellite with cold numb hands, looking down at the earth, trying not to fall. I can’t see the storm’s details or the full extent of its destruction, but its trajectory across the face of the earth is clear.

I’ve been compelled since then to “bear witness to the truth,” as Jesus said the stones would do if the disciples didn’t.

Sometimes the truth borne witness to is positive, as was the disciples’ — “Blessed is the king who comes in the name of the Lord!”

Mine has been a “fire in the bones” variety I can’t get rid of, a warning more along the lines of Isaiah 30 [where we in the U.S. are the “obstinate children”]:

“Woe to the obstinate children,” declares the Lord,
“to those who carry out plans that are not mine,
forming an alliance, but not by my Spirit,
heaping sin upon sin;

who go down to Egypt without consulting me;
who look for help to Pharaoh’s protection [Might],
to Egypt’s shade for refuge.

But Pharaoh’s protection will be to your shame,
Egypt’s shade will bring you disgrace. …

Because you have rejected this message,
relied on oppression and depended on deceit,
this sin will become for you
like a high wall, cracked and bulging,
that collapses suddenly, in an instant. …

“In repentance and rest is your salvation,
in quietness and trust is your strength,
but you would have none of it.”

—Isaiah 30, Woe to the Obstinate Nation

Now, though, I’m stuck in a quagmire of my own, profoundly disillusioned that so many of us, even very bright ones of us, were so easily duped and so defiant about staying that way.

What disillusioned me most was seeing some of my Christian brothers and sisters who not only didn’t denounce this god-awful national leadership debacle early on but instead actively embraced it.

Now I’m disconnected from participation in my church community for a reason I can’t get past: if persons there are sufficiently undiscerning as to praise the Bush team’s godliness, how can I trust their discernment in other areas? I can’t bring myself to worship in an environment where I cannot trust.

It’s like I finally ran outside the grace that kept me connected.

I recognize this is my problem, but it’s no less a problem to me.

Where I am reminds me of what I wrote to a friend back in March,

If you try to support war in Iraq and confess faith in Jesus, your integrity is breached, because, God knows, the two are mutually exclusive. If you try to do both, you become a stumbling block to Christians and non-Christians alike.

Defending the faith while promoting aggressive war is playing “soul jeopardy” in the gravest way, for who can say how many turn away from the Lord in grief or revulsion as a result?

I just didn’t foresee being so tripped up by the stumbling blocks myself.

[I’m recording this here in hopes I can look back from a near-future vantage point, whole and reconnected, and rejoice at how far we’ve come. Meanwhile, maybe I’m providing a point of identification for anyone else in the same boat.]

A friend recently noted the U.S. MOAB bomb test — “the biggest conventional bomb in the military’s arsenal … privately known in military circles as ‘the mother of all bombs’” — and concludes its use in Iraq demonstrates U.S. moral superiority over “the terrorists.”

Setting aside for a moment Iraq’s unproven involvement with “the terrorists,” which, unless we’ve abandoned the principle of “innocent until proven guilty,” translates to Iraq’s noninvolvement with “the terrorists,” how can unleashing large-scale destruction there in any way demonstrate our moral superiority?

Never underestimate the power of supernatural evil to deceive.

In attempting a response, I came close to what grieves me so deeply about the kind of witness statements like my friend’s communicate. I wrote:

I don’t mind that you support war in Iraq, although I feel sad that you do.

I don’t mind that you confess you’re a Christian, especially one who’s done [sacrificing outreach] things I admire.

But you can’t do both. You have to choose.

If you try to do both, your integrity is breached, because, God knows, the two are mutually exclusive. If you try to do both, you become a stumbling block to Christians and non-Christians alike.

Then I think I hit the bullseye of what grieves me.

Where we are now is embroiled in an obsession, deceived by calculated use of God language, and we’ve turned a blind eye. Awake! If we don’t work diligently to obey Jesus, if we rationalize our way out of his command to love God and love neighbor, if we accede to the myth of redemptive violence instead of redemptive grace, we are not worthy of his name.

Defending the faith while promoting aggressive war is playing “soul jeopardy” in the gravest way, for who can say how many turn away from the Lord in grief or revulsion as a result? Repentance, as John the Baptist was fond of shouting, is still the surest way out of that jeopardy.

“What do you want me to do for you?” Jesus asked him. The blind man said, “Rabbi, I want to see” (Mark 10:51).

Note to self:
Never underestimate God’s supernatural power to redeem.

2003-03-16 update: I was asked to clarify what I meant in saying supporting war and confessing Christianity are “mutually exclusive” above. Here’s my attempted clarification:

The mutual exclusivity (adjusting my original wording a bit) is between supporting war and obeying Jesus. There is no overlap between the two. Arguing against this implies either (1) ignorance of the gospels or (2) lying to oneself.

Now it’s equally true that for many of us it is difficult unto death to obey Jesus fully. If we’re unable to obey — in this case, if we choose to disobey him by supporting war — we have to at least have the integrity to say “I know your words, Lord, and I know I am disobeying you; forgive me, for I cannot see how to reconcile your command to love my enemies with the world situation before me.”

If, however, we lack the integrity to recognize our disobedience and instead attempt to march to war “in Jesus’ name” — in direct defiance of his words to us, and in effect attributing our disobedience to him — then he will say to us:

“If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his Father’s glory with the holy angels” (Mark 8:38, today’s lectionary reading, interestingly enough).

Lord knows I don’t have all the answers. This exchange is just what’s been — and is being — deeply impressed upon my soul as true. I cannot be silent.

(See also Peter Storey, For Christians, every war is a civil war.)