Maikimo.net taxonomy tags

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.

On this the first anniversary of the day euphoria-becomes-despair for the future of our country — U.S. Election Day 2004, the day we ceased being pushed into the abyss and jumped — I look back at what I was thinking The Day After:

Lamentation: The darkness descends (November 3, 2004)

The lament remains, but now I know this unstable alliance of the greedy, the arrogant, and the ignorant cannot endure. More of us depart its company every day. (I infer from new 35% approve/60% disapprove numbers).

But that we fell for it at all keeps getting in my way. Grrr.

<mini-rant>Patriotic fervor, practically a trademark of those in the 35%, masks a weird conundrum: America cannot stay #1 without our assertively pursuing excellence — in science, engineering, the arts, and social justice, for example — yet on many fronts we’re racing, hell-bent, toward mediocrity. What kind of sense does that make?</mini-rant>

We’ve been a frozen lump of dough, hard as stone; as a people are we finally thawed enough to rise? Is the leaven still here? Is the leaven working?

Can my spent dry heart come back?

The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. —Galatians 5

Because I need reminding.

DonBinTN speaks to Republicans’ concern that Star Wars too closely parallels the Bush Administration. Then I run with the idea, myself.

Friday’s news that “in 96 hours of fighting and ambushes in far western Iraq, [this Marine] squad had ceased to be” hoists my ass once more onto the [theological] soapbox.

Republican majority leader Bill Frist has “agreed to join a handful of prominent Christian conservatives in a telecast portraying Democrats as ‘against people of faith’ for blocking President Bush’s nominees.”

My presence disproves their case.

An imagined monologue from God, peering up from God’s browser (arising from Eyes Wide Open exhibit, after musing on “counting the cost”).

“Mr. Gonzales shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near [the U.S. attorney general] office.”

Talking Points Memo: Josh Marshall: ‘The stubborn refusal ever to change course, which the president tries to pass off as a sign of leadership or devotion to principle, is actually an example of his cowardice.’

I hold this truth to be self-evident:

Bush's "war on terror" is an incomprehensible exercise in increasing the likelihood that high radicalized, highly motivated terrorists will again strike on American soil. A serious war on terror would begin from a recognition of the nature of the threat, with a considered response that's both flexible and comprehensive. Bush's Iraq war is none of these.

(This clean wording, however, wasn't as self-evident to my self; David crafted it.)

I expect that history will record much of what we've done so far under "What Not To Do To Fight Terrorism." I predict the perception will be almost unanimous within 20 years, "How could we have been so foolish?"

Will a succeeding Kerry Administration effect a considered, flexible, and comprehensive response that defuses rather than inflames terrorism? I'm convinced it's possible, maybe even likely, though not certain. I see no chance for a turnaround under Bush: Seeing the world in black and white means being blind to the complexities of people and therefore, to the root causes of terrorism. Being unable to remember or admit mistakes means no chance of ever correcting them.

And -- this is my theological opinion as a Christian -- swimming in hubris means being cut off from the Spirit of Life, the source of any lasting solution.

A terror-free world -- it's a destination I believe we can get to, despite present appearances. But only by turning, not by accelerating in the wrong direction.

Paul Krugman’s words yesterday set in motion another juxtaposition on the teleprompter in my head:

From the day it took office, U.S. News & World Report wrote a few months ago, the Bush administration “dropped a shroud of secrecy” over the federal government. After 9/11, the administration’s secretiveness knew no limits — Americans, Ari Fleischer ominously warned, “need to watch what they say, watch what they do.” Patriotic citizens were supposed to accept the administration’s version of events, not ask awkward questions.

Paul’s column continues, building up to his observations about Richard Clarke’s revelations about the Bush Administration this week:

But something remarkable has been happening lately: more and more insiders are finding the courage to reveal the truth on issues ranging from mercury pollution — yes, Virginia, polluters do write the regulations these days, and never mind the science — to the war on terror.

It’s important, when you read the inevitable attempts to impugn the character of the latest whistle-blower, to realize just how risky it is to reveal awkward truths about the Bush administration. When Gen. Eric Shinseki told Congress that postwar Iraq would require a large occupation force, that was the end of his military career. When Ambassador Joseph Wilson IV revealed that the 2003 State of the Union speech contained information known to be false, someone in the White House destroyed his wife’s career by revealing that she was a C.I.A. operative. …

The latest insider to come forth, of course, is Richard Clarke, George Bush’s former counterterrorism czar and the author of the just-published “Against All Enemies.”

I’m not interested in playing the blame game. But I am determined to see this “shroud of secrecy” removed from my government. And I am passionate about changing our nation’s direction to one that’s just, that’s sane, that’s effective, one that doesn’t grieve the Holy Spirit so much with its hypocrisy, lies, violence, and false witness borne.

So to Paul and all these others who are steadfast and willing — at whatever cost — to rip the veil of secrecy by practicing the truth, I salute you.

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.