This has been a rough couple of months, and I am in a morose mood today. Part of it is the stress of the last few months. Part is the weather. It is beautiful here in OK today, but also heavy and humid. My allergies are angry and that doesn't help. The result of the job search coupled with my impending 40th probably makes me more moody than normal.
I got into an argument over at Catholic_girl's Bad Catholic blog with a guy named Bubba. We probably got off on the wrong track because I made a little fun of the name. It doesn't fill one with confidence, I guess.
But Bubba is articulate and conservative and Christian. And he has bugged me. He has all the talking points down--all the spin on Bush and the conservatives. I am sure he would say the same about me. I am sure he is bugged by me. Part that bugs me is the complete lack of doubt or seeming reflection on his cause. Again, I am sure he would say the same about me. I remember Sherman Alexie saying that we all needed to watch for our own fundamentalism; we all had to ask ourselves "what if I am wrong?" I think I do that. Readers of this blog may not be convinced, but I am good at self-doubt. Some would say too good.
Anyway, the part that still stings, though, and makes me wonder why I do this or even try, is the constant refrain of the challenges of a liberal to be a good Christian. Bubba, to his credit, never said that he didn't think I was, or that liberals couldn't be Christians, but he did say that it was harder. Liberal ideology, he said, made it less easily compatible with Christianity.
Why does this sting so much? It reminds me of the historical reality of the post-Cold War--where Liberals always had to justify their patriotism. We still do. Bush never has to justify or reiterate his patriotism, and he avoided service in VN! But everyone just assumes that a conservative is patriotic.
I remember going to a party with Streak's other friend where someone (who I like, btw) said loudly that she couldn't understand how anyone could actually vote for Clinton. This was in the context of a Christian party, actually, and I had just endured an hour or so of praise singing. I certainly took it that she could not imagine someone from this context--a praise-singing, Bible-waving Christian voting for Clinton.
I am just tired of being treated in certain circles like some kind of an oddity. In fact, the arrogance to assert that conservatives are either better at being good citizens or Christians is more than I am willing to take today.
10 comments:
Streak
In thinking about your post, I got to thinking about what a Christian is. I found the following definitions:
1. One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
2. One who lives according to the teachings of Jesus.
Most Christians I know would have more to add than the above depending on denomination, "left" or "right" leanings, etc... The "conservatives" I'm acquainted with tend to draw a narrower definition of who does/doesn't qualify for this label, sometimes adding clarification to their self-definition with something like "I'm a TRUE christian" to distinguish their brand from those of us who are, I don't know, "untrue christians"? Anyway, I'm getting around to your post-praise songs experience. (BTW, my hat is off to you for enduring the hour or so of THAT. How close were you to using your belt as a noose?) Conservative is often an appropriate term for these type of people that you describe- conservative with love, conservative with acceptance, conservative with grace, conservative with care for the environment, conservative with respect for those who differ with their theology, etc...
If a fundamentalist is one who adheres to the basic principles of the faith, i.e. the teachings of Jesus, then I guess I'll have to consider that label for myself along with liberal (Fundamentalist Liberal?). I see Jesus as pretty liberal- liberal with love, liberal with acceptance, liberal with grace, liberal with respect that restores dignity, and the list goes on and on. The few times I saw him less liberal were the ones in which he was conservative with his tolerance for the religious elite who would use their power and influence to oppress those who were powerless (the temple ass-kicking, the unwashed tombs, the broods of vipers, etc...)
In the conservative/fundamentalist tradition of my first 20 or so years the faith had strict guidelines. Right and wrong were defined with clear boundaries. It was critical to get it right. If something was questionable it was eliminated. We were careful not to ask the questions that were really on our minds because just doing so could bring into question whether or not we really "got it", whether or not our faith was adequate. Teachers were armed with the right answers and approved curriculum. Later in life I allowed myself some of those questions. For example, when were Jesus' disciples "saved" or "born again"? In response I guess some might point to the "who do you say that I am..." passages. Even so, weren't they disciples or followers of Jesus long before that. I believe that wherever we are, in whatever condition we find ourselves, we are accepted by God. Is that not Christ's own example? He starts working with us at that point. If we really want to follow her and do her will, then we're in for a great journey. Her appeal is by attraction, not compulsion. Jesus cast a wide net and erred on the side of grace (see Judas Iscariot) I think I should do the same.
Patriotism. Interesting that you brought that one up. Merriam defines it as "love for or devotion to one's country". I may be totally off here, but what I think some mean by patriotism is actually nationalism ("loyalty and devotion to a nation; especially : a sense of national consciousness exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups") Probably too big a subject for me to cover here.
Jesus was an "oddity". Religions and religious people, Christians included, seldom behave well when given power over others and are "mainstream", especially when that power includes the ability to make laws. In fact, when religions get political power it seems to me that they get less and less distinguishable from each other.
The christian figures I admire the most were oddities- most of them hellraisers to boot. Following Christ means adhering to principles contrary to those that you have to follow in order to achieve power, wealth and fame, What's wrong with feeling odd in that company. When you feel comfortable there, Streak, that's the time to take a good hard look at where you've sold out.
Wow, I ended up with over a full page of hot air. I'd best stop.
Take it easy- BB
Streak- I just read Miguel De La Torre's latest essay over at Ethics Daily. You need to check it out if you haven't already
Streak -
You are an oddity. Revel in it! :) It's the oddities that change the world while others keep the status quo or try and send us back to the stone age.
I agree with bootleg blogger, your liberal leanings don't make you any less Christian. Just Christian with a different slant on life.
I'm Wiccan in a staunchly Catholic family with mostly Christian and jewish friends, and thankfully a nice circle of other Wiccans to share spirituality with. You think you're an oddity? Try explaining to your family why you don't care that you don't feel bad missing the annual Easter gathering since you don't celebrate it any more. Or why you open your holiday presents with your 2 year old son on Dec. 21 (Winter Solstice, or Yule) rather than the 25th. Not feeling so odd any more I hope?? :)
Like bootleg blogger said, Jesus was probably the biggest radical of his day. Now billions follow his teachings in one form or another. Feel comfortable in your own skin, and don't consider yourself odd until you start behaving contrary to your own convictions. Stay strong my friend. There's nothing wrong with being you.
"Patriotism, the last refuge of a scoundral."
We, in Canada, are little perplexed by American patriotism. We do have folks who try to emulate a Canadian version (especially here in Alberta, which is, what you might call, a Red State), but it never really catches on.
"My country right or wrong" attitudes reveals a narrowness that creates wars, genocide, etc. The bible would call patriotism idolatry. And for good reason.
In a free country, it would seem that you would have the freedom not to be a patriot - to carve out your own idenity according to your own values, within a community of your choosing (or not). Isn't that the essence of freedom?
Just some thoughts,
kgp
hah. I have been called an oddity about three times this week and never in such great company! You guys are great. Thanks.
I posted this over at bad catholic (who, I think stole her name from me, not the other way around ;) ) too, but since I read your post here, I think that it may be appropriate here as well.
I think the thing that frustrated me most about the Bubba entanglement is that it was as if he believed that conservatism was some sort of 'path to God.'
Conservatism and liberalism cannot be that. I don't believe, anyway. Humans trying to approach God through politics is a futile attempt.
Your political rubric, I believe, just is. There's very little you can do about it.
Bubba said that it was much easier to reconcile a conservative political mindset to Christianity. I don't think that doing so is fruitful...thus, who cares if it's easier. It obviously is for him, otherwise he'd be a liberal.
It was a rather stupid thing for him to say, I think. Because, if it was easier for everyone, there'd be no liberal Christians. That said--reconciling a political mindset to Christianity seems a meaningless task to me.
Doing good in the eyes of God--now, that I can get behind.
Either way, Streak, you rock. I love you, even when I think you're a touch on the militant end of things. To be honest, when I need a bit of self-reassurance I surf by your blog and am encouraged that my views aren't as obtuse as the popular Church keeps telling me.
Thanks!
Oh, Brandon, you made my day. I am not sure how I am on the "militant end of things," but I will take that as a compliment and a nice end to the day. :)
Oh, and I meant to comment on BB's noose comment:
I am not saying that praise and worship is hard on people, but they are now exchanging song lyrics for belt and shoelaces!
Maybe I should've replaced the word 'militant' with 'passionate'. Although, I think you're a beligerent passionate person.
(and frankly, I respect your beligerent passion.)
No worries. My only objection to the "militant" tag is that it really implies a lot of work! What with the planning and plotting and waving the signs in the street! Who has that kind of energy?
"Belligerent Passion!" I like it.
Streak,
Do you think there is any difference between the discourse about God and politics in contemporary America and in histoy? I was about to respond to Brandon's excellent quote - in which he suggested that politics in no path to finding God or being a better Christian - by saying that many early American politicians did not make Christianity or God part of their political dialogue. They were more concerned about the limits of the federal government (considering the threw off a monarch), creating a republican citizenry, the possibilities and excesses of a liberal society, etc. From what I recall, God does not enter political dialogue until quite recently, perhaps the 1970s and the reaction to the turbulent 1960s. And then I remembered: Manifest Destiny. Here, God was used to justify westward expansion.
Is this current debate about God and Christianity in the public arena something novel (a recent creation since the 1970s) or merely reinterpreted by activist polictians for a new generation?
Post a Comment