1

What are you saying here:

"But you know why it's such an easy complaint? Because despite the tendency of the "religious right" to get distracted by insignificant concerns (i.e., prayer in schools), they never depart from standing up for certain issues that are incontrovertibly important."

It sound's like the gist of this statement is "they have urgent priorities."

Things like: "For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ." (1 Cor. 12:1)"

This only tells you that their are lots of parts to a single entity. Does all that mean something?

2

I wonder ...
When I discuss in the Liberal world the idea that charity and other character traits should not be done by proxy (through government agencies, eg, via Social Justice), I'm afraid that many believers do the same through their agencies.
Would it be a stretch to say that many give to World Vision, Feed the Children, etc., so that they don't have to help the person on the street? Perhaps for an indeterminable percentage I suspect it's true. If we're collectively not so different from much of the world in terms of behaviors like divorce, what makes us think that we're much different in terms of real concern about other world events?
Sorry to be so cynical in the a.m., but I'm not always so positive about the motives of many within our evangelical community. Much of it deserves criticism. Yet, given that the community of Evangelicals os so brood and disconnected, the fact that we do anything together is rather amazing.
So, I think on the matter of attention to world affairs we can handle a little criticism, even if it does go a bit too far.

3

"There are certain Christians in America who would wade through fields of aborted babies to champion a government-funded school lunch program."

Great line.

There is much to criticize in the church today, but much of it is imbalanced. There are still tons of good things being done - sharing the Gospel, feeding the poor, visiting prisoners, etc.

4

Watershed moment: you have finally acknowledged the existence of a progressive religious tradition.

Of course, you wrapped it up in vitriol and un-Christ-like bilge, including the dishonesty of:

Some of the most smug, most back-biting, most politically utilitarian Christians I've ever seen are on the left-side of the political spectrum. There are certain Christians in America who would wade through fields of aborted babies to champion a government-funded school lunch program. While they may give lip service to such concerns, they have forgotten that the right to life and dignity are prerequisites for social justice.

This is like the famous technique perfected by rightie media of "Some people are saying that..."

Well, let's get to specifics: which left-wing Christians are you talking about?

If you're talking about those who feel that incividuality and the right to act according to one's conscience trumps whatever one may feel about abortion, that's not the same as saying they'd wade through a bunch of dead fetusses for a school lunch program.

So, let's get to specifics.

Oh, and one other thing: the religious right has usually been dead wrong on "right to life issues." The equating of zygotes with born people or born people with brain-dead people is an offense to life, not a support of life.

5

I disagree with the premise that Christians in America are not concerned with Zimbabwe. Here is just one story about the Catholic archbishop of that country trying to do something:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/africa/03/22/zimbabwe.thursday/index.html

Many blogs in the US have been following the plight of the archbishop and providing updates. We had a missionary from Africa two Sundays ago who mentioned it from the pulpit. Just because the mega-Christian leaders are silent doesn't mean that average Christians are ignorant or unconcerned.

Further, I think it is a matter of perspective. I blog more often about pro-life issues than Iraq issues - over 5 million babies have been killed since the Iraq war began. The slaughter of 5 million innocents in my backyard is a priority, because of the numbers and also because I, personally, may be able to affect that number through various efforts more than I could personally affect the body count in another country.

Another point to ponder: how do you know whether people what people are praying and fasting privately about?

Mama Says

6

Mumon - I get Jim Wallis' e-mail. Joe was generous in his characterization of the Christian Left. My reaction to Sojourner's elitism usually evokes a response that was charcteristic of Peter's early days as a disciple. It takes a lot of discipline not to quote the Vice President when faced with their insulting characterization of the majority of Christians.

Joe - I appreciate these "All The Trouble In The World" posts more than just about everything on this blog. I would, however, be interested in what rank-and-file Christians can do about it.

7

This reminds me of that post Joe had where he complained about Rudy being soft on partial birth abortion. He said opposing partial birth abortion may represent the respect for life that would enable a politician to speak out on Darfur. I put this hypothesis to the test by seeing how often Joe (being opposed to partial birth abortion) spoke out on Darfur. He almost never spoke a word about it, except to find a way to relate it to his opposition to Rudy. No doubt those suffering there appreciate the contribution they are making to the advancement of right wing politics in the United States. Anyway:

A few points:
1. Comparison to Iraq: Why assume 'doing something' means a US military invasion? Many times publicity & exposing a gov't or dictator works shame them into fixing bad policies. Many dissidents in the USSR got released because of simple, humble letter writing campaigns.

Say your street was filled with drug sellers and users. Assuming you decide to solve the problem rather than just moving out; would you do it by calling the police every time you saw a drug deal? 50-60 calls a day? Or would you think a program where you engaged the different characters on different levels (calling the police for some, simply encouraging others to get help, 'shaming' some buyers by photographing their cars and putting them up on posters).

2. Think global act local: Fact is we know more about what's happening in our house than on the other side of the world. Most of us know nothing about Zimbabwe. If we read all the major newspaper articles and journal articles on it faithfully, we'd know about Zimbabwe but not as much as those that actually live there.

We are going to do a better job addressing injustices closer to home. Likewise I don't think the people of Zimbabwe would be as much help to us trying to address problems here.

8

Mumon,
Right now there's a strong movement for "social justice" within evangelicalism. As has been mentioned, there's Jim Wallis, Sojourners, and Tony Campolo. If you were to read Hans Boersma's book "Violence, Hospitality, and the Cross: Reappropriating the Atonement Tradition," you'd find that he also accepts (the Liberal view of) social justice as a legitimate expression of the Atonement.
I'd suggest that the movement is so much from the Left as from some components of Liberalism that are creeping into our theology. It's an intramural problem (in paradigm, not in good action) that we need to deal with.
And on the pro-life side: There's more than one issue at stake. Infanticide (including "partial-birth" procedures) and active Euthanasia are also significant concerns. This is where the utilitarians will only leave behind corpses, because that's what they've done for 34+ years.

Collin
http://evangelicalperspective.blogspot.com

9

Collin Brendemuehl:

Shorter version of what you wrote:

Jim Wallis, Sojourners, Tony Campolo, and Hans Boersma are "liberals," one of which supports social just as an expression of the Atonement.

Sorry, but "liberal" isn't an insult or a bad thing except insofar as it may not go far enough if it's a liberalism of Joe Biden or Hilary Clinton. You know, it connotes "liberty." And social justice is a good thing too, and frankly, I could make a good case for how it could be related to Christian atonement.

Justin Thibault:

Shorter version of you: You agree with Carter's Phariseism.

So?

10

Mumon,
Hans Boersma & Wallis are hardly in the same Liberal ranks as Campolo & Co. My concern was for the position being promoted and its inconsistency with orthodoxy. That's our intramural issue.
You're correct that a connection can be made. It has been accomplished within PT but not within exegetical systematics.
I understand very well what Liberal means, as well as the products of the Liberal age. Liberalism has provided us with the liberty of conversation without killing each other, but it also provided the 20th c. with more death than is imaginable. (Maybe Hegel & Nietzsche were right -- maybe the human condition requires a strong leader and strong government. Just a thought.)

Collin

11

Joe --

The concern about Dr. Armstrong ought to be whether or not he's trading one kind of social Gospel for another. That is, at what point would he draw the line between the church and the state? Is it really reasonable to say that the state ought to be, in the end, a function of the church becuase it ought to be populated by members of the church?

My opinion is that Dr. Armstrong is a bright man with a good, Christian conscience who doesn't finish up his thinking. If we ought to "do something" about Zimbabwe or whatever place it is, is the redemptive, Gospel-oriented solution "make war on dictators"? I'm not an advocate of a Government that doesn't do Rom 13 at all, or stands down from Rom 13 when it comes to external evil-doers, but if the problem is persecution of Christians, historically and Scripturally the solution is "Preach the word, in season and out of season".

Good post. Great topic.

12

It's very doubtful that if Christ were walking the earth today he would be called "evangelical". If he were to visit Focus on The Family or Family Research Council headquarters, I'm sure some of the money-changer's cubicles would be overturned.....and he'd have a few choice words for their pharisee-like hypocrisy.

13

I'd really like to see your thoughts on reconciling Nationalism with the Gospel call. I think that really strikes at the matter of our only "intervention" being martial. How would our perspective on immigration, genocides, etc. change if we did not have our national interest at heart, but a global worldview of easing our brother's suffering? Food for thought.

Mama Says

14

We should not confuse the concerns of Christians with the priorities of US foreign policy. Although, we may wish to think so, US foreign policy does not act in the interest of Christians and is not always benevolent.

A chief concern for Christians is to care for suffering fellow believers and alleviate their suffering whenever possible, including acting to protect them. This may involve government action but it may not. The US government will act in its own best interest which we can hope to be in the interest of its citizens. As Christians, we can and should promote our interest through the institution of government but we would be mistaken to think that the US government is seeking to promote social justice worldwide.

15

My opinion is that Dr. Armstrong is a bright man with a good, Christian conscience who doesn't finish up his thinking. If we ought to "do something" about Zimbabwe or whatever place it is, is the redemptive, Gospel-oriented solution "make war on dictators"? I'm not an advocate of a Government that doesn't do Rom 13 at all, or stands down from Rom 13 ...

Why is the assumption here that 'do something' means the gov't will be the primary actor and why is it assumed the only act the gov't can do is make war? In the 1980's the US & Europe 'did something' about South Africa. It didn't make war on them, though. There was a grassroots campaign to shame them that was reluctantly followed up by trade sanctions.

Likewise Pope John Paul II is often credited with the fall of Communism in Poland but Vatican City didn't launch any armies into Poland.

16

Boonton, it was economic action that changed South Africa, not shame. Neither would work with Mugabe. Oh and by the way better stick to calling the police on those drug dealers because your other ideas will probably get you killed.

17

Sorry, but "liberal" isn't an insult or a bad thing except insofar as it may not go far enough if it's a liberalism of Joe Biden or Hilary Clinton. You know, it connotes "liberty."

Maybe classic liberalism connoted liberty. Today its definition has been turned 180 degrees into people who think there should be no limits on the power of government in attempting to achieve their vision of a utopian society. Most of the true "liberals" (in the classic sense) are on the right wing today. You'll find some libertarians who will still refer to themselves as "Liberal", but most will also quickly distinguish by referring to today's "liberals" as "left-liberal". The modern liberal agenda in no way, shape or form can be achieved with anything less than a strongarm government. The size and strength of government is inversely proportional to Liberty in a society.

It's not that there aren't conservatives who don't understand this, and feel the need to call on government to enforce their own little agenda, but in general, people on the right tend far more to prefer limited government and thus the precious liberty you speak of.

18

J.J.

There has also been a rather radical re-definition of "conservative" too. Exhibit A - The "conservative" Cheney/Bush administration.

I guess conservative now means more intrusive federal government, out of control spending, and pissing on the constitution?

19

Boonton, it was economic action that changed South Africa, not shame. Neither would work with Mugabe. Oh and by the way better stick to calling the police on those drug dealers because your other ideas will probably get you killed.

There was plenty of shame too & plenty of dissidents were released from communist and other tyrannical countries' jails simply from letter writing campaigns. No one said it is guaranteed to work but then neither is invasion. Even if it doesn't work directly it still provides support and guidance to those dissidents living inside tyrannical countries.

Most drug infested blocks that are now clean got clean because of community action. This includes direct outreach as well as individual economic actions with personal motivations (such as buying empty houses, restoring them and renting them out)

20

classic car cheap insurance