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.

“If we Americans are split into two meaningful camps, it is not conservative versus liberal. The two camps are these: the politically awake and the hypnotized.”

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.

Teresa Heinz Kerry. I sense great power in Teresa (video, transcript). Not because she’s a particularly dazzling speaker, or only because she’s deeply knowledgeable and passionate about her interests. I find great power, much-needed power, in Teresa’s linguistic prowess (she’s fluent in five languages). Speaking another’s language empowers one to understand others, individually and culturally, in ways that monolinguistic people like me can only imagine.

IOW, Teresa has through years of study wired her brain to comprehend other cultures at a deep level.

Hence, when Teresa greeted attendees near and far in English, Spanish, French, Italian, and Portuguese, I instantly knew this is a person I want representing my country to the world. Because I as an American want to understand my brothers and sisters who live elsewhere — and I want to be understood.

Barack Obama. I had read bits here and there about Barack Obama, upcoming Senator from Illinois, even saw him on Meet the Press Sunday. But I’d never heard him address a crowd. Until tonight.

Barack Obama is one of the most powerful speakers I’ve ever heard.

Slow, steady buildup for several minutes. Then liftoff. …

I am stunned. I am wiping away tears. Hope wells up. “The audacity of hope.” Yes.

If you’ve ever wondered what “the Spirit of the Lord is upon me” looks like, I think here’s your answer. This is what it looks like, and this is the effect it has on others.

Just watch it (Real video or QT/WMP). Or read it (transcript, alt).

A few hours later I realize that what Barack is doing is smashing the negative “liberal Democrat” stereotype. He exemplifies what liberal really means, and surprise, it’s not what endless right-wing repetition says it is. The man talks frickin’, compassionate sense of the kind that nearly all open, honest, thinking people identify with and aspire to, regardless of their political affiliation. Conservative extremism would have us believe otherwise, that “conservatives” and “liberals” are hopelessly and irredeemably divided, but the truth is it’s all us, by and large, living, loving, hoping, seeking as humans do.

It’s genius, I tell you. And it happens to be the truth.

I think I know when the thief is coming …

Judgment Day? Yes, it’s coming, but judgment by whom? I have long perceived the judgment involved as largely one’s own, as beautifully pictured near the end of C.S. Lewis’ The Last Battle, one of the most meaning-full books I’ve ever read:

As the land of Narnia comes to an end, its inhabitants stream out through the stable door past Aslan the Lion’s gaze. Some choose to go “further in and higher up” into the bright light of Aslan’s country, God-ward, we are given to infer. Others choose to turn aside and go into outer darkness. The most striking thing to me about this two-pronged parade is it’s not Aslan who’s doing the judging; it’s each one leaving who chooses the direction to take (193).

Lewis summarizes this understanding of judgment elsewhere saying, “Either you say to God, ‘thy will be done,’ or God must say to you, ‘thy will be done’” (The Great Divorce, 72).

Some in Narnia are caught in a dilemma, unable to cleanly choose — the circle of dwarfs sitting inside the exit door. They keep telling themselves they’re in a dark stable where things are at least familiar; meanwhile those around them see they’re sitting in broad daylight. Aslan says of them that they are in a prison of their minds’ own making, “so afraid of being taken in that they cannot be taken out” (186).

It’ll be a surprise. As in unexpected. Paul says an interesting thing: “You know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. While people are saying, ‘Peace and safety’” [as in “The American people are safer, safer, safer” (GWB)] “destruction will come on them suddenly, as labor pains on a pregnant woman, and they will not escape” (1 Thess. 5:2-3).

Matthew reports Jesus’ similar comments on this timing, “No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. … Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come. But understand this: If the owner of the house had known at what time of night the thief was coming, he would have kept watch and would not have let his house be broken into. So you also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him” (Matt. 24:36-44).

Here’s my hunch. The unexpected surprise is that judgment has descended from the lofty theological realm with its talk of salvation, heaven, and hellfire, and been made concrete, even mundane: U.S. election day is judgment day. (It will certainly be a judgment day.)

On that day, will we lose our shackles of fear and choose to go “further in and higher up” to a future committed to justice and to bringing all our will to bear on being blessed peacemakers, as Jesus commends?

Or will we choose to continue down this road of endless war [as in “I’m a war president … with war on my mind” (GWB)] with its accompanying inattention to God’s concerns: poverty, injustice, and hypocrisy?

Might I be overstating the gravity of the situation? Maybe.
Do I think I am? No — I think this is a pivotal moment in human salvation-history.

Let’s keep watch. WWAD?

2004-07-20 update:
I like to hope this Judgment Day choice is as evident to a resounding majority of us in the U.S. as it is to me. I mean, if we’re unencumbered by ideology, paying attention, and thinking, how much more clear-cut could the choice be, even for those of us who don’t habitually think in theological terms?

Yet today in my workplace breakroom I heard a colleague wet his lips and exclaim at the TV, “I don’t have to listen to a word that guy says to know he’s a liberal dipshit.” Personally, I don’t think any Bush supporter who stares open-mouthed at Fox News for minutes on end needs to be calling anyone else a dipshit.

I’ve been struggling to stop overly lumping in genuine, honest conservatives — with whom I have much in common — with the festering, malodorous sore on the face of democracy that is right-wing, extremist, neoconservative Bush Republicanism.

In this clarifying effort I can probably put to use Lefty’s semantics suggestion in a Daily Kos comment:

I’ve stopped using the term “conservative” as much as possible, preferring the term “regressive” instead. First, I feel it is a more accurate description of the debate to frame it in terms of regression and progress. Second, “regressive” sounds uglier and more undignified, much as the right wing has done with the term “liberal” in common usage over the last 20 years.

Sounds fair — regressive extremism is ugly and undignified. Thanks, Lefty.

But mostly, I’d rather live in a world that doesn’t need labels. How long, O Lord? Maybe when the lion lies down with the lamb? (popular reference, I think, to Isaiah 11 and 65)

Until then, though, as Martin Luther quipped, “If the lion lies down with the lamb, the lamb must be replaced frequently.”

As an Enneagram Nine I am often the lamb in conflictive situations. So for now accurate labeling — Crap! That’s a lion! — helps me lessen the frequency of my replacement.

And sometimes — on my good days — an accurate label reminds me to respect and engage the lion as a splendid fellow creature, even though all I see is him licking his chops and drooling.

In the interest of precision, I note that the text actually couples wolf with lamb, leopard with goat, and calf, lion, and yearling. No lion and lamb AFAIK. The message for me is clear enough, though: one day we’ll all get along.

I’ve mentioned my fondness for the progressive Christian writings of Rev. Allen Brill at The Right Christians, The Preacher at Real Live Preacher, and Fr. Bojangles at Le Prêtre Noir.

Now a new delight beckons: Melanie is now writing at Daily Kos, starting with today’s Liberalism and Religion (wherein, BTW, she references each of the above writers) —

Secular liberals, you need to get a clue: there are lots of deeply religious people out here who reliably pull the lever in the voting booth for the straight D[emocratic] ticket. We are Christian evangelicals and Main Line Protestants and Catholics like me, from the Dorothy Day-Peter Maurin-Oscar Romero wing of the Church. We are Jews and Muslims and Sikhs and Buddhists and Jains, pagans, Hindus and, yes, by God, there are even Zoroastrian Democrats in this country. When you make light of religion, you wound a part of us which is very important to us. …

Fundamentalism, be it Christian or Islamic, is only one faction of these faiths, which are not monoliths. Every one of the world’s great faith traditions is an umbrella which covers wide and various theologies and practices. … It is too easy to tar all of Christianity with the broad brush of condemnation of the George Bushes, the Pat Robertsons, the William Boykins. Yes, they own one piece of the large tent which is Christianity, they are not one that I can justify in any way.

Like Melanie, I am also a layperson with a master’s degree in Christian theology. And I have in the past dreamed of being “a spiritual director, retreat director and writer.” But I am still too bogged down in disappointment and anger to write well — or at all.

Melanie causes me to remember that what I’m doing is letting the Christian Right’s fundamentalism (and its embrace of a corrupt U.S. administration) cast a shadow of darkness over my whole experience of the faith. Which isn’t even slightly reasonable.

I hope to be better one day. I expect that my renewed attention to reading these folks will hasten that day for me. Check them out. Thanks, Melanie.

(I also recommend Kynn’s Shock & Awe; I often agree and I always appreciate his style. And I can hardly get enough of Jeanne at Body and Soul. My not-quite-up-to-date blogroll contains dozens of others on my Top 5 list. :-) )

2003-12-05 update:
Melanie now has her own blog, Just a Bump in the Beltway.

Thom Hartmann discusses well the differences between conservative vs. liberal perceptions of morality:

[Conservatives] define [morality] first and foremost in terms of personal behavior: What goes on in people’s bedrooms, what drugs others may be taking in their own living rooms, whether a woman should be allowed to prevent or terminate a pregnancy. In their fervor for these issues, many conservatives think they are the only ones concerned about morality in an otherwise decadent society. …

While personal morality is key in the conservative world-view, public morality is the overarching concern of liberals. Some are so passionate about this morality that they’re led to acts of civil disobedience.

Then Thom mentions a most compelling reason for conservative Christians to rethink/expand their understanding of morality, IMO: Jesus, according to the Gospels, indisputably emphasizes public morality:

Perhaps best summarized in Jesus’ description in Matthew 25 of who will (and who won’t) get into heaven, liberal morality asks: “Are the hungry fed? Does everybody have the housing, clothing, and health-care they need? Are those in prison treated humanely? Are we caring for the “strangers” — the less fortunate or less competent among us — in the same way we’d want to be cared for if we fell on hard times?”

Many liberals would say that what people do in [their] private lives is their own business, and that if we hold to the ancient standard that only those among us without sin may cast stones at those with personal failings, we’ll have a more humane and decent society.

It’s not that personal morality isn’t important. It is. But it’s not a useful behavioral emphasis because we’ve all fallen short. Personal morality is a fruit of the Spirit, an ongoing outcome of a changed life; it’s nothing we can effort into place. (As Mr. Limbaugh and Mr. Bennett are learning.)

Public morality, OTOH, is a behavioral choice that’s crucial toward effecting a just and sustainable society. That is, if you’re theologically inclined, toward effecting the real Kingdom of God. Hence, it’s the kind of morality Jesus emphasizes we’ll be judged for.

What I observe here in the U.S., to my dismay and revulsion, is a thoroughgoing lack of public morality among loud conservatives in general and the Bush Administration in particular. There’s no excuse, and there’s no hiding: more and more, by their fruit we recognize them. The time of playing along that black is white, up is down, is drawing to a close.

See also related Farai Chideya encouragement, Avoiding the Rush to Gloat.

2003-10-28 update: Bob Herbert in a New York Times op-ed illustrates present intra-U.S. consequences of this Administration’s lack of public morality quite clearly IMO (also archived at Truthout).

And absolutely square-on to the point: Bill Moyers interviews Union Theological Seminary’s Joseph Hough —

There is a definite intentional move on the part of political leadership in this country … [that] is not at all compatible with the prophetic tradition in Islam, Christianity, or Judaism. And that is the obligation on the part of people who believe in God to care for the least and the poorest. That central teaching, that sacred code, I think, is very well summed up in Proverbs [14:31] where the writer of Proverbs says, “Those who oppress the needy insult their maker.”

gore bush truth curiosity policies compassionate conservatism war