May 19, 2008

Christian conservatives?

What the hell is this?:
"Columbus — Georgia Republican Party chairwoman Sue Everhart said Saturday that the party's presumed presidential nominee has a lot in common with Jesus Christ.

'John McCain is kind of like Jesus Christ on the cross,' Everhart said as she began the second day of the state GOP convention. 'He never denounced God, either.'

Everhart was praising McCain for never denouncing the United States while he was being tortured as a prisoner of war in Vietnam.

'I'm not trying to compare John McCain to Jesus Christ, I'm looking at the pain that was there,' she said."

This is what combining faith and politics has given us.

****

Speaking of conservative Christianity, I want to build on a subject raised in recent comments and something we have discussed peripherally on the blog for a long time. Every so often, a conservative Christian comes in here and suggests that people who believe evolution, or those who don't believe the Bible is divinely inspired, or those who aren't Christian at all--don't have any morals, or don't have the ability to form morality. That, according to many conservatives, comes alone from God.

So, how do conservative Christians learn their morality? I will concede that some of them are written down in the Bible. Not killing, not stealing, etc.

But what about those things not addressed directly in the Bible? Racism? Environmental destruction? Or even those things that are addressed? Taking care of the poor, the contrast between the wealthy and the poor, etc. How do conservative Christians understand those things?

And I am not being snide here. I really want to understand.

32 comments:

steves said...

Every so often, a conservative Christian comes in here and suggests that people who believe evolution, or those who don't believe the Bible is divinely inspired, or those who aren't Christian at all--don't have any morals, or don't have the ability to form morality.

I wouldn't take this position, though with another Christian, I usually have some common frame of reference that I may not have with a non-Christian. I would never assume a non-Christian has no morality without knowing a lot about that person.

So, how do conservative Christians learn their morality?

The Bible, as you say. Laws, customs, social mores, professional codes of ethics.

But what about those things not addressed directly in the Bible?

I would have to say that most things are directly or indirectly addressed by one or more of the things I already mentioned.

Racism?

I believe this is addressed in the Bible in several places, especially in terms of 'loving others'.

Environmental destruction?

I believe this is also addressed. I spent a summer working at a Christian camp where the main theme was conservation and being good stewards of the planet.

Taking care of the poor, the contrast between the wealthy and the poor, etc.

I know I have mentioned this before, but while there is agreement that we should take care of the poor, there is disagreement as to what is the best way and how much of a roll the government should take.

leighton said...

I'm not sure conservative Christians are a unified front on this. There are vast numbers of people like Steve and Tony who function well in internet society, and then there are the ones who don't--the tribalists you seem to be directing the question toward, if I've read your post correctly. There are tribalists in any sufficiently large reference group, but I tend to agree that Christian tribalists are the most visible and powerful in the U.S.

I'm not sure your question has a direct answer. Explaining something entails an understanding of two points of view, and a core component of deep immersion into an authoritarian Christian [or whatever] worldview is the belief that no other viewpoints should exist. That outlook doesn't exactly lend itself to explanations to someone who thinks differently.

I'm no psychologist, but I will say that the adults in the church I grew up in behaved toward people who disagreed with them in ways that were indistinguishable from the antics of my middle school classmates, and substantially worse than my high school classmates a couple years later. With many of the people you complain about, it seems to be a simple issue of belonging; it doesn't so much matter what you do, or why--what's important is where your loyalties lie when you do whatever it is that you happen to do, for whatever reason.

But with others, it's more nuanced. I spent several years on the SecWeb forums, and it was a regular pattern that the most venomous posters were invariably of two kinds: the ones who were legitimately gone in the head (or the heart) who were eventually banned, sometimes with police reports filed when they made credible threats of violence toward members whose identities were public; and the ones who were in the process of breaking out of their authoritarian cages and had to pass through the various stages of detox. Most of them eventually became ex-Christians, but not all.

I think Dave Rattigan at one point wrote up a list of these stages--it's sort of analogous to the five stages of grief, though there were more stages in his list. The only ones I still remember were the ones that pissed me off the most when I was trying to moderate forums.

I also liked Sarah Robinson's Cracks in the Wall series on the topic of detoxing authoritarians.

Gah...sorry this is so long. Way, way too long.

Anonymous said...

They are coming at the question from a different starting premise, though. While I might believe that Christian morality is by no means unique to Christianity, and proceed from that premise in the discussion, Leighton's tribalists might argue that my position is unsound because it stresses works over faith and that only through faith can one become truly moral.

At least this was my experience years ago when confronted at OU by someone who was aggressively demanding to know if I had a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. When I mentioned that I was raised in a UCC church, dude repeated his question. It wasn't until later that I saw the bumper sticker that read, "Born OK the First Time." I had a more pleasant exchange with the Hare Krisha-type monk I met at about the same time.

steves said...

There are tribalists in any sufficiently large reference group, but I tend to agree that Christian tribalists are the most visible and powerful in the U.S.

I think this group is substantial and tends to get the most press, but I wonder if they are the largest group. My experience growing up in the Catholic and Lutheran churches was much different and I didn't get the tribalist vibe that you get among some Christians.

There are some at my current church, but there are plenty that are not and there are no requirements in that regard. I think you raise a good point about authoritarianism. I have run into many people that use middle school debate skills that have some kind of authoritarian mindset, whether it is religious, political or some other belief system.

Tony said...

My frame of reference is indeed the Bible, but unlike the tribalists that Leighton brings up, to which also I believe Streak is referring to, I try to remove my "rose-colored glasses" when dealing with specific issues.

I think the Bible deals with all of the things you mention, Streak. Though there may not be rote chapter and verse addressing some, there are principles we can derive from Christian morality (which is where tradition and reason should come in). It does require interpretation of the text, and that is where we get in trouble.

For example, I think we both can relate and discuss environmental issues even-handedly. I see a clear mandate in Scripture to be environmentally conscious; the "have dominion" of Genesis 1. However, allow interpretation to come in, and that "everything will be burned" in due time (2 Peter 3:10) and I think we make a fatal misstep.

The fact is that for too long churches have not spoken on tough issues (or somehow by default that by flashy preaching the members ought to just "get it"), they have allowed celebrity Christians to speak for them who as a general rule are more concerned about their star-power than addressing genuine needs, and now, not liking what it has bought us, evangelicals have morphed into this nebulous, vacuous group, unsure of who they really are.

Moreover, the Bible recognizes a morality beyond the born-again variety. It recognizes that people can and indeed do moral things without using faith as the starting point. However, those works are inadequate to save (Isaiah 64:6; righteousness as filthy rags).

HOWEVER, saving faith in Jesus Christ is not complete without an outward expression of that faith by works; Ephesians 2:8-10, James 2:14-26. And again, this is where our interpretations overcome us.

Faith and works, as ubub has pointed out, are not mutually exclusive; one ought not to be elevated over the other for both are necessary. So, I think then, by that understanding, Christians ought to display exemplary morality.

leighton said...

I think this group is substantial and tends to get the most press, but I wonder if they are the largest group.

I didn't think they are the largest, just the most powerful. But now that you mention it, I think that is also wrong, or at least it needs qualification.

Now that I think about it more, I think the most powerful clique (in our country, worldwide, or anywhere) is actually CEO-caliber corporate executives and corporations with lots of money. They can be tribalist too, but usually not in the same sense that authoritarian [say] Christians or Muslims are tribalist, since there isn't that normative component that tries to bully or ridicule dissenters into conforming. Nobody outside the clique exists, so they don't troll web forums. They kind of fell off my radar since we were talking about people being jerks in blog comments, but I think they are a far more influential force in the world.

Ubub, I got the faith-over-works argument a lot too back in the day, and I think that's an example of how people's conscious and unconscious motivations can be almost completely divorced in an authoritarian personality. I know this is how I was many years ago, at least. The sensible part of me couldn't accept that my negative gut reaction to non-Christians and not-the-right-kind-of-Christians was nothing more than they went to a different kind of church, or no church at all. There had to be a logical, rational, indisputable reason behind it. The alternative--that I might, like every other human being, have an irrational feeling once in a while--was inconceivable, so I latched on to whatever flimsy sermon-sounding excuse I could. Mine was "Doesn't trust the Bible as authoritative" rather than "faith over works," but any port in a storm, I guess. Whatever sounds familiar is safe. I think this dynamic accounts for the frequent inability of fundamentalists to acknowledge any error they make, even when they've been caught making things up out of whole cloth.

Just to clarify, it's not that emotions themselves were bad, but the problem with people trusting their instincts is that they are trusting their instincts rather than the all-important group norms.

Streak said...

I think some of my issue comes from conversations where it appears that morality is inside a relationship with God in a way that it no longer becomes anyone else's business. Some issues, of course, qualify as such, but some have broader implications. Yet I can't tell you how often I have heard people look at something that clearly makes them uncomfortable--ostentatious wealth, driving and Escalade or Hummer, etc.,--but stopping and saying, "it is none of my business."

Now, if those people were gay, or committing adultery, that would not be the response.

Tony, I agree completely with your statement about Biblical principles. But it seems that those principles need some explanation and exploration in a public way. Talking to friends, it appears that churches don't directly address many moral issues and seem to leave the "connecting of the dots," (so to speak) up to the individual.

And as a teacher, btw, I can tell you that I see a lot of adults who are incapable of connecting many dots together. They are good people and smart, don't get me wrong, but they seem to have difficulty walking something out more than one or two levels.

This explains, in my mind, the response to the death penalty or torture. The beginning assumptions tend to over-ride the followup. "Capital punishment is morally justifiable" and "someone who has taken a life, deserves to forfeit theirs" ends up in general support for the practice. Issues like guilt and innocence, dna evidence, class and racial biases, etc., are just too many steps.

The same, it seems to me, occurs when the issues are financial. Questioning capitalism usually gets me a "so you want a Soviet style collectivist state?" Meaning that they have already assumed that capitalism is the best, and any questions are taking us to communism. Once you have started there, and assumed that hard work is Godly, and that wealth earned from that hard work is what you deserve, then any questions about wealth become far too distant to get to.

Now who is babbling? Sorry about that.

Bootleg Blogger said...

Streak- I'm no sociologist or historian (that's never stopped me from commenting before :-)) but my answer to your question, "So, how do conservative Christians learn their morality?" is that it is from culture. You can find a variety of definitions of culture from the sociology book versions to the merriam webster versions, but regardless I would use that as the place to start. Religion is a component of culture but not the entirety of it. I've had hours of discussion in a previous life as to whether one's religion is absolutely integrated into one's cultural identity or can one's religion change while maintaining one's traditional cultural identity. Anyway, culture determines morals. Religion and the associated texts inform those morals and, as others have posted, religious text can be a source of verification for these morals, but there are numerous factors contributing as well. Ten minutes into a conversation with a non-american "conservative" christian in australia or china you'll find out quickly that alot of assumed "conservative" attitudes in the US are seen very much as "american" attitudes rather than "christian" ones. Militarism, consumerism, certain entitlements, etc.... span christian and non-christians alike. The christians may find bibilical justification for their actions, but the end result is more informed by the american part than the christian part, I think. Most cultures have varying degrees of diversity, but much more in common at their foundations. We may argue over what car to drive, what would Jesus drive, should it be an SUV or an economy car, but not many of us are arguing about whether or not it's moral for us to drive at all. The degree of consumption is the debate, not the moral base, or lack thereof, of the issue itself. The same could be said of about any issue. I'm not sure I'm on the same page as you with your questions, but I think they're good ones.
Later-BB

steves said...

Talking to friends, it appears that churches don't directly address many moral issues and seem to leave the "connecting of the dots," (so to speak) up to the individual.

I think it depends on what church you are talking to and what morals you are talking about. I have heard sermons or participated in Bible studies on issues related to consumerism, the environment, racism, war, the death penalty and many of the others you have mentioned, all in the past few years. OTOH, in 30+ years of attending church I have yet to hear a sermon on gays.

leighton said...

Steve, is that a regional thing or something? I've lived on the west coast and in Colorado, and the only churches I've heard going within 500 miles of those topics are Unitarians. Maybe I just move in different circles or something?

Anonymous said...

Augustine (I think it was him) said "Love God, then do whatever you want."

Occasionally, I catch a bit of the Dr. Laura show. If you've ever heard her callers, it always seems to me that they already know what the right thing to do is, they just somehow feel more confident in hearing her say it too.

I think Christians are much like that. The Bible tells us to meditate on God's Words so that our minds can be transformed. When I meditate on Scripture, it brings me into a "other's first, honesty, good stewardship, humility, etc..." mentality that makes it much easier to make decisions when it comes to issues that are not directly addressed in Scripture.

And in all honesty, there really isn't much (if anything) that isn't directly addressed in the Bible. Sure some things are oft repeated or directly stated as "do this or this will happen" but I doubt that if any believer really asks him/herself if something is appropriate, they're likely to be like the Dr. Laura callers and probably already have a pretty good idea of what to do/say in ANY given situation.

Streak said...

Tim, I am sorry, but I am not a fan of Dr. Laura's approach and am not sure I buy that she always has the "right" answer.

And further it seems that you are reiterating what I am struggling with--that through prayer and study, God will magically tell people how to act. If that is true, then the Bible Belt either missed his message on race, or he isn't very concerned with it.

Anonymous said...

Streak,

Yeah, I don't really care for Dr. Laura, it's just that I find myself listening to people who seem to struggle over the most unbelievable situations... and then they don't have a clue how to resolve them with any common sense. It's sad yet oddly comical.

The Bible is very specific with regards to race. We a created in God's image. Jesus died for Jew, Gentile, Greek, slave, free, man, woman, etc... While the Bible doesn't enourage a revolt and/or physical violence, it does command that we not show preference and men like Dr. MLK used the Bible's example as his foundation that all men should be free as God's creation. The Bible has been hijacked for wicked prpurposes and when the idiots who manipulate for their own agenda's yell loud enough (Fred Phelps), one might think that it indeed what the Bible teaches. The pharisees too, knew the OT, but Jesus called them "sons of the devil."

I think anytime we continue to think about specific, Biblical precepts, we can't help but remember them in situations where we need to make a decision. I believe that the Holy Spirit, brings to my attention specific Biblical truths that help me act accordingly at different times. That may seem odd, but I believe it and it is taught in the NT.

The Bible is clear, people of all races, toungs, tribes, creeds, etc.. will be in Heaven. If that's true then we need to treat those people as Christ taught us to. Obedience to the Bible would eliminate racial problems. Unfortunately, those who disobey typically get much more publicity than those who obey.

Streak said...

DT, I don't necessarily disagree with you about the Bible about race, though the text never openly condemns racial slavery. But I think that many of the moral decisions we have reached (abolition of slavery being one) we had to do through more than simply thinking on the Scripture.

Bootleg Blogger said...

Streak- I think most of the regulars here would quickly voice that their moral compass is largely derived from jewish and christian scripture. For the most part there is a large degree of agreement that the bible teaches loving each other, caring for others, oversight of creation, etc... However, your questions were directed at more militant fundamentalists that sometimes comment on the blog. These folks read the same verses, mix it with a strong sense of nationalism, dispensationalism, zionism, phallic insecurity, and any number of other cultural or personal influences, and come up with an entirely different morality than, say, a dallas tim or a streak. It has already been mentioned that there is a great variety in interpretation of scripture. So what influences that interpretation? Why does a Streak write off a Hagee sermon but embrace a Palmer devotional possibly based on the same text? Again, I think culture, experience, and self interest play a huge role. Unfortunately, the following scriptures made it into the canon:

Ephesians 6:5
 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.
Ephesians 6:9
 And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.
Colossians 3:22
 Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord.
Colossians 4:1
Masters, provide your slaves with what is right and fair, because you know that you also have a Master in heaven.
Titus 2:9
Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them,

These scriptures along with others were used for centuries to justify slavery (as long as you were a fair slave owner).

I agree that the bible touches on most topics, at least in general, that involve personal behavior and morality. I just think that for the most part people (mostly those who disagree with me) develop our applied faith or morality with scripture as one element of the mix but certainly not the bulk of it. If you've ever met someone who is really trying to literally apply the sermon on the mount or the first few chapters of Acts, you'll notice that they're pretty much written off as impractical kooks and are seen to threaten the modern, american christian.

This is probably off topic but I think much of this holds true to any religion or non-religious groups.

Later
BB

Streak said...

No, BB, you aren't off topic. I agree. I think my issue is this: most Christians who say they get their morality from the Bible and God actually start with their cultural and personal influences and then read the Bible and interact with God through that lens. That isn't a bad thing, necessarily, but when they are convinced that their morality is directly from God, it makes for the type of authoritarian that Leighton spoke about.

Perhaps all I am asking for is a bit of humility--especially from people who have been so wrong in the past about such key moral issues.

Anonymous said...

I think that there is a very obvious reason the the Bible doesn't make adamant statement such as "no one should be a slave and anyone who owns one is bad."

One of the foremost callings for the believer is to live their life in service and humility (like Jesus). That often means not "sticking it" to the powers that be. Obviously, we now live in a country that has most recently defined itself as a Christian nation. So if so many of us consider ourselves Christian, then why do we still also harbor such prejudice in so many areas?

The issue in the NT was a bit different. Jesus didn't call His followers to rebel. He didn't advocate fighting back against slave owners. He didn't say "If they think they can do that to you, then make them pay and show them that no one gets away with mistreating one of my followers."

No, the NT writers knew that most of the known world used slavery as simply a way of life. It was just how things were. So how did the NT writers convince their adherents that one could live as a slave and still exhibit humility and grace even in the midst of often harsh situations? The Apostle Paul admonished his friend, Philemon, to treat the slave Onesimus (who had apparently escaped) as he would have treated Paul Himself and even release him. Paul encouraged slaves to be free (if peacefully possible) but if not, he admonished them to remain as they were and serve as though serving Christ Himself.

The Bible is rather clear with regards to slavery. If one finds themselves as such, then seek freedom if possible, but if not trust God and do what is right. If you own a slave and become Christian, you nust treat your servant as you would treat a fellow believer or maybe like an employer would treat an employee. That might mean freedom. Some slaves mght have wanted to stay on, especially if it meant a steady job and that they were going to be treated with respect and dignity. Many would have obviously preferred their freedom to rejoin families and then returned to work under better conditions. There would have been so many different scenarios with which to respond.

Often, when it comes to slavery, all we can think of is a mental picture of slaves working on the "massa's" plantation. That wasn't always the way it was in NT times. Those who owned and mistreated slaves in early America simply ignored what the Bible said. What if one owner, wanting to do the right thing and knowing that he couldn't instantly change the entire system, bought an entire family and brought them to his plantation and fed them, gave them an honest wage, protected them, and considered them more like staff, than "slaves?" Would that have been wrong? That may not have happened much but if it did, would we have a different opinion?

I don't have all the answers, but it is a bit disingenuious to say that the NT is silent on the issue of slavery or that anyone could have ever used the NT as a way of supporting what happened in America in so many instances.

That's my Humble opinion.

Streak said...

I don't have all the answers, but it is a bit disingenuious to say that the NT is silent on the issue of slavery or that anyone could have ever used the NT as a way of supporting what happened in America in so many instances.

I disagree. Those who defended slavery used the entire Bible quite extensively to justify their ownership of others. And I think the NT is silent in the America system.

Anonymous said...

You can disagree.

The NT (including the passages I mentioned) are clear for those who are really looking for what the inspired text has to say.

To think that a blanket statement could have been made in the midst of an entire known world practice (slavery) that all slaves must be freed would have, like it or not, likely turned society on it's head. Slaves who became new Christians would have felt it their right to revolt. That would not doubt bring many of their deaths or improsonment. If freed, many slaves, young and old would be turned out on the street, with no place to go, and the "overnight" shift would have caused much more turmoil than we realize (crime, retaliation, etc...)

The writers spoke, to any willing to listen, regarding the structure of an ideal Christian society. No sexism, no slavery, no debt, no hunger. Those things could be achieved as Christians were willing to subject themselves to Jesus in every way.

leighton said...

Tim, if you can find a way to convince the Hagees and Robertsons of the world--and more importantly, their followers--that the Bible they think they're interpreting correctly actually disagrees with them, then more power to you. Until then, your "All real true Christians realize this and agree with me" schtick isn't just annoying, it's useless to most everyone but you.

Bootleg Blogger said...

I think Jesus wasn't afraid to make extremely radical statements. He didn't speak specifically about slavery but the other verses I listed spoke TO slaves and owners of slaves without mentioning whether owning another human being was a problem.

I think Tim makes a good point, though, that the NT was written in a specific time, place, culture, etc.... in which those reading would probably more likely be the owned rather than the owner. Those to whom Streak is appealing believe that the bible was pretty much dictated by god and applies the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Streak's appeal for reason, in my opinion, requires a release of the claim of possessing absolute, eternal truth and the selective literalism/inerrancy that comes with it.

I agree that it would be great if most people read the bible and came away with Tim's conclusions, i.e. obviously slavery is obviously contrary to Jesus' message. That's just not the way it's happened down through history. Political agendas, institutional self preservation, etc.... have had as much to do with the practical application of scripture as the words themselves.

With regard to the societal effects of suddenly freeing slaves, I think the abundance of words of slaves and former slaves speak best to that line of reasoning. In addition, the year of jubilee and the less intense minor holiday years in between would certainly have been disruptive but were supposedly as much a part of the law as any other passage. My understanding is that it was never practiced. Again, the supposedly obvious moral imperative spelled out in the law was victim to many other factors on the way to the clinical ethic.

Lastly, militant religious fundamentalists (I include Hagee, Falwell, Robertson, and plenty of unknowns) of any stripe share much in common and the more they control a society the more the average person suffers. I don't care what brand they are- Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, Christians, or secular humanists. The belief that you have the only way and that non-believers are a threat and must be dealt with severely is always frustrating and sometimes dangerous for those of us not in their circles of believers.

Later-BB

steves said...

Steve, is that a regional thing or something?

I am not sure, as I have only ever attended churches in the Midwest. One of the kids in the discussion group I co-facilitated goes to a different church. He said that environmentalism was a sermon topic last month. I am not suggesting that these are regular topics at all churches, but rather that they are discussed at some. How many, I have no idea.

As for slavery, I do not have the answers, but I don't see the NT as justification for practicing slavery. Didn't Jesus say, "for whatsoever you do to the least of my brother, that you do unto me." How is this consistent with slavery?

Also, what is the historical context? How was slavery in ancient times different than slavery in 19th century America?

Streak said...

I do agree that the Bible comes out of a context. What bothers me is that the discussion about this usually reminds me of the difference between baseball players and management. "When we say it is a game, they say it is a business. When we say it is just business, they say it is a game."

When I say that the Bible comes out of a context, I often hear back that it is as BB noted, straight from the mouth of God, applicable then as now, or "the bible says what it means, and means what it says." When I suggest that the Bible literally rejects wealth, war, torture, etc., I hear back, "you have to interpret those passages in a context."

And DT, I agree with Leighton. There is a passive aggressive quality to how you argue. It is often in the "this is just my little ole' opinion but you are wrong" mode. And I also agree with him that had it been readily apparent to earnest people, racism and sexism would be things of the past.

And hell, speaking of it, we are still in an administration that endorses and defends torture. The same Christian conservatives who tell me that God communicates clearly these moral principles are sitting on their hands about torture.

Anonymous said...

Again, who led the charge against slavery in the US? Most people would see Dr. King as that person. He used the NT as the text for his words and actions. They weren't violent, they weren't hateful tit-for-tat type of arguments. He was arrested, but he called for peace and calm.

For every "nut" who you say has absconded with the text if favor of their deviance, there are others who use the same text to go the other way.

Leighton, even true Christians get carried away, get caught up in fads, and let peer pressure dictate what they should be doing. The religious leaders of Jesus' day had done the same thing. They were more interested in control than service, taking than giving, showing judgement more than grace.

Hagee's unBiblical theology has gotten him into several situations that are silly and sad. Hey, twisting Scripture will do that. That doesn't mean I have it all right, but if everyone did, then the very Book that says false leaders will continue to abuse power, would be self refuting.

Streak said...

Well, Dr. King didn't lead the charge against slavery, he led it against segregation and for civil rights. And you are right, he used non-violent protest very effectively, though he was far more radical by the time he was assassinated. And he was opposed by the Christian conservatives of the day. Most of them (I say most) now say that civil rights was the right thing and that segregation was wrong.

But during the Civil Rights movement, check where southern White evangelicals were on this issue.

leighton said...

They were more interested in control than service, taking than giving, showing judgement more than grace.

I chuckled a bit at this, since you don't seem to realize that this is exactly how you come across in blog conversations.

Read this sometime. It was a text Dr. King read and re-read while he was in prison, and it shaped the approach for his entire political career. One of Niebuhr's foundational premises is the naivety of religious thinking that if everyone just followed God/the Bible/the right ideals, that would be sufficient to transform society into a just and merciful place. (The other pole, which he argued just as vehemently, was the naivety of secular idealism thinking that proper education can solve all of society's ills.)

I believe Streak's point, which you can't or won't see, is that consistent with the text and derivable from the text are two completely different things. Dr. King's approach--and contra your post, he used more imagery from the OT than from the NT--is consistent with principles advocated in the NT, but he wouldn't have come up with it if he hadn't read Niebuhr. You're arguing that just reading the Bible is good enough to achieve any social goal, but experience and history both demonstrate that this is quite false. Again, "Things other than the Bible are useful" does not mean "The Bible is worthless."

You talk as though every good example of Christians behaving well completely agrees with your approach; this one of the things that I read as passive-aggressive, since it's a form of "well but but everybody else thinks this, so why are you so silly as to disagree with what everyone else sees clearly."

fightingpreacher said...

Streak, I know I havent commented on here in a long time but I am fascinated by this thread. So I wanted to pop back in


Really this is as has been alluded to already a problem of Hermeneutics. The Bible is the Scriptures, God Breathed, and inspired. It is useful for us today BUT one must first understand the context in which it was written. We should understand that Christian Scriptures were never written to address the 21st century audience. So we must read it from the context of the 1st century this process is exogesis.

Unfortunately many today come to the Scriptures with their own understanding and then read their culture into the text. This is called isogesis and everyone is guilty of it to a greater or lesser degree.

Conservatives and Liberals alike abuse the text to serve their own agenda's.

Slavery is a great example of this. The founding fathers and those in England actually understood the concept that all men are equal and that would apply to slavery. The New Testament (NT) is the first 1st Century writing that promotes equal treatment for women as well as many other things.

An interesting note is that this process is the same process we should be attempting to apply in our everyday communication with each other.

Streak said...

FP,

I agree. I think I am unsure about anyone approaching the Bible without imposing their own culture, experience and other biases.

I think it would be more accurate to say that some of the Founding Fathers (Founding fathers, btw, is not ultimately a useful term, really, as it usually refers to a pretty diverse bunch of people) understood that equality was contradictory to slavery, but certainly not all. Not only is the understanding of the Bible context changing during this time, but also the understanding of race. Ultimately, my frustration with suggesting that the Bible is "the" answer is all the numerous examples of where those relying on the Bible have been on (in my estimation) the wrong side of history. Conservative evangelicals were wrong, imo, on slavery, segregation, civil rights, women's equality, environmental protection, and poverty. I fear they are wrong on homosexuality now, but we shall see.

fightingpreacher said...

I would like to see how Conservative Evangelicals were on the wrong side of "slavery, segregation, civil rights, women's equality, environmental protection, and poverty". For example in most of the writings of Barth and other influential writers during the last century were totally against slavery and segregation, for civil rights and women's equality. I can remember in the 90's quite a few Conservative Evangelical preachers talking about perserving our enviroment. Lastly in all of Christian literature, Scriptures, and sermons I have read and heard there is always been a Christian voice that cries out against poverty and the treatment of the poor. So I would have to disagree with your opinion. Maybe those you are classifying on Conservative Evangelicals are not Evangelicals at all.

I want to respond to the homosexuality separately.

fightingpreacher said...

As far as the homosexual issues.
First, I believe that Homosexuality is a sin but that people that are Homosexual or Lesbian should be treated with diginity and respect. I also believe that Biblically speaking there is no difference between the sin of homosexuality and fornication or adultery!
Second, I do not believe that the main stream interpretation of Homosexuality is off though the treatment of homosexuals and lesbians by some who call themselves Christians are not Christ like.
Third, in all of Christian history homosexuality has always been condemned just as any other anti-biblical sexual relationship has been. This isnt like the womens equality issue or other like issues. This is about sin.
The Bible is very clear about sexual sins and I believe that we are not on the wrong side of this issue.

Anonymous said...

Homosexuality is wrong only if you believe the Bible is some sort of literal script for everyone everywhere. You may like it, but that doesn't make it the same for everyone else.

Streak said...

FP, I do understand where you are coming from. I just don't necessarily agree.

Let's start with evangelicals and social justice. Are you saying that American conservative evangelicals were for civil rights and opposed to segregation? Because in the areas most dominated by conservative evangelicals (the south) saw the worst of the social prejudice. What is more, prominent conservative evangelicals like W. A. Criswell and Jerry Falwell openly opposed civil rights and suggested that MLK was an agent of communism or worse.

Same with the environment, I fear. Only recently have I seen conservative evangelicals speaking out on environmental issues. In the past, such concerns were dismissed as "earth worship." Perhaps you can direct me to some conservative evangelicals who were leading on climate change, because I certainly can't think of any.

As for poverty, let me say that I know that a good many conservative evangelicals are very concerned with the poor and give of their time and money. But I also know that they have aligned themselves with political forces who have made life harder for the poor. Actually, if you consider all these issues, just look at the South. In southern states, conservative evangelicals seem to get heard in a lot of political voices. More restrictions on alcohol, sex (some southern states still outlaw sex toys, for example) and a more prominent role for protestant "traditions."

Those states are also have the worst environmental records, and the worst places to be poor or working class. In Alabama, for example, a hardly-liberal Governor tried to reform the tax code that is widely considered to be one of the most regressive in the country and hardest on the poor. He was defeated by conservative evangelicals.

As for homosexuality, let me just say that we will have to agree to disagree. I think the Biblical restrictions on homosexuality have no consideration of an adult, monogamous and affirming gay relationship.