In a famous review in a 1950 issue of the journal Mind, Sir Peter Medawar said of a book by Teilhard de Chardin, “its author can be excused of dishonesty only on the grounds that before deceiving others he has taken great pains to deceive himself.” Something similar could be said of Randall Balmer’s recent essay, “Jesus Is Not a Republican.” If Palmer is not being intentionally misleading and dishonest, it is only because he has first misled and deceived himself.
Self-deception is no crime, but Balmer a professor of American Religion at Barnard College, Columbia University, has an incredible potential to mislead. Balmer is a respected academic who has taught as a visiting professor at Yale, Princeton, Rutgers, Drew and Northwestern universities, Union Theological Seminar, and the Graduate School of Journalism at Columbia. He has also served as an editor-at-large for Christianity Today magazine and is widely sought as a commentator by Time, Newsweek, CNN, ABC, CBS, Fox News, PBS and the BBC. His views on evangelicalism are taken seriously by both the mainstream media and the academic community. He may not have the name recognition of Tony Campolo or Jim Wallis but he is a leading voice for liberal evangelicalism.
The essay, an excerpt from his recent book, Thy Kingdom Come: How the Religious Right Distorts the Faith and Threatens America: An Evangelical's Lament, attempts to preempt the inevitable criticism’s of his views: “I know, for example, that when my new book on evangelicals appears, the minions of the religious right will seek to discredit me rather than engage the substance of my arguments.” Fortunately, we don’t have to choose for he gives us plenty of reason to criticize both him and his rather substance-free arguments.
Let’s begin first with the personal. Balmer predicates his criticism of evangelicals by purporting to be an evangelical himself. “I'll put up my credentials as an evangelical against anyone's!” he exclaims. The extent of his credentials, though, appears to be his claim to being an evangelical. He attends a decidedly non-evangelical Episcopalian church in one of the most mainline dioceses in America. And ever since his 1989 book, Mine Eyes Have Seen the Glory: Travels Through the Evangelical Subculture, he’s attempted to distance himself both theologically and culturally from anything that could be discerned as being distinctively evangelical.
Not only is there no orthodoxy behind his evangelicalism, there is little rigor behind his arguments. For example, Balmer recently told NPR that “blind allegiance to the Republican Party has distorted the faith of politically active evangelicals, leading them to misguided positions on issues such as abortion and homosexuality.” His claim might have been more coherent if he had said that allegiance to politically active evangelicals has caused the Republican Party to take misguided positions on issues such as abortion and homosexuality. That would have at least made more sense than the inane claim that evangelicals oppose abortion and homosexuality only because we are under the spell of our GOP overlords.
So what is his “evangelical” view on abortion, “a matter properly left to a woman and her conscience”?
I have no interest in making abortion illegal; I would like to make it unthinkable. The most effective way to limit the incidence of abortion is to change the moral climate surrounding the issue — through education or even through public-service campaigns similar to those that discourage smoking or drugs or alcohol or spousal abuse.
Such statements are typical of the sloppy thinking and soft-on-abortion rhetoric of liberal evangelicals. Even the most ardent pro-choice advocate would admit that making the procedure illegal would effectively limit the incidence of abortion. Yet Balmer appears to be unaware that spousal abuse and narcotics are both illegal. He also fails to recognize that smoking and drinking alcohol are often more restricted than abortion.
If his criticism seems peculiar, consider how it might have been applied in the 1850s, when evangelicals were opposing slavery:
I have no interest in making slavery illegal; I would like to make it unthinkable. The most effective way to limit the incidence of slavery is to change the moral climate surrounding the issue — through education or even through public-service campaigns similar to those that discourage smoking or drugs or alcohol or spousal abuse.
You might assume that since he wants to make abortion “unthinkable” he would reserve his harshest criticisms for the political party that wants to preserve abortion-on-demand as an unquestionable constitutional right. But Balmer doesn’t have a negative word to spare for the Democratic Party. In fact, to ensure that we don’t misunderstand his point, he clarifies which side of the political divide God prefers:
"Do not be misled," St. Paul wrote to the Corinthians. "Bad company corrupts good character." Jesus himself asked: "What good would it be for you to gain the whole world, yet forfeit your soul?" The coalition with the Republican Party is blasphemy, pure and simple.
The charge of blasphemy seems a bit excessive. For instance, during the last GOP convention the evangelical delegates excused themselves when the crowd began sacrificing virgins to Alan Greenspan. Conservative evangelicals do, after all, have limits. Still, its seems rather peculiar to hear such a charge come from a man who has the temerity to claim “the leaders of the religious right are vicious toward anyone who refuses to kowtow to their version of orthodoxy,…"
While it is difficult to ascertain his motives, I suspect that Balmer desperately crave the approval of true (read: secular) liberals. He knows that like former Communist Party apparatchiks, the fastest way to ingratiate himself is to confirm their conspiracy-drenched fears:
A number of people have asked me what the religious right wants. What would America look like if the religious right had its way? I've thought long and hard about that question, and the best answer I can come up with is that the religious right hankers for the kind of homogeneous theocracy that the Puritans tried to establish in 17th-century Massachusetts: to impose their vision of a moral order on all of society.
Such a claim is a prime example of Carter’s Law of Political Rhetoric, which states that “as the number of religious conservatives expressing an opinion on a moral or political issue increases, the probability that someone on the political left will invoke the term “theocracy” approaches one.” History will eventually prove this to be the most empirically verifiable maxim in political science. There is also overwhelming evidence to conclude that anyone who claims that American evangelicals want to establish a theocracy is either irredeemably stupid or pathologically dishonest. In Balmer’s case I believe that it is clear that he is intentionally dishonest. He simply includes too many lies, half-truth, and relevant omissions to draw any other conclusion.
For instance, he repeatedly makes claims implying that religious faith should not influence politics. “The lesson was clear. Religion functions best outside the political order, and often as a challenge to the political order.…religion in America has always functioned best from the margins, outside of the circles of power, and that any grasping for religious hegemony ultimately trivializes and diminishes the faith…”
If he truly believes this then why in his essay in The Nation did he encourage John Kerry to attend an evangelical church "from time to time." What would be the purpose of mixing church and politics in that way? And why does he not mention that he himself ran for State Representative in Connecticut? Does he assume (rightly) that we might be more skeptical of such claims coming from a Democratic Party hack than we would a purportedly objective professor of religion?
In fact, this is the greatest weakness of Balmer’s entire essay, a problem that plagues the political left-wing of evangelicalism. He wants to argue that conservative Christians should stay out of politics because religious informed political positions have no place in a pluralistic society. His main premise is that since conservative evangelicals (at least their “leaders”) are all theocrats that they must stay out of politics altogether. But the implication is that it is acceptable for liberal evangelicals like him—who would never allow their religious beliefs to interfere with their party’s platform—to run for office since they vote for morally superior Democrats and not the “blasphemous” Republicans.
This attitude is the primary reason that politically liberal evangelicals are consistently marginalized and ineffective. Since they know their positions can rarely be supported by scripture, evidence, or reality, they appeal to a “social gospel” that is built around a Jesus who supports abortion rights and same-sex marriage and opposes “creationism” and Wal-Mart. Balmer’s view is representative of a variety of liberal evangelical whose perception of Jesus is shaped more by repeated viewings of Jesus Christ Superstar than by reading the Gospels.
About the only thing I can find to agree with in Balmer’s article is the title. I whole-heartedly agree that Jesus is not a Republican, nor for that matter, is Jesus a Democrat. As Biola professor John Mark Reynolds notes, “He’s probably a monarchist.”
Addendum: Accusing someone of being dishonest is not something I take lightly so I want to present one more example that I believe is typical of Balmer’s approach. In the second paragraph he ends with the sentence: “Another evangelical friend with political convictions similar to mine actually endured a heresy trial.”
You might be led to believe that it was the liberal political convictions of his “evangelical friend’ that led to the heresy trial. But this is not the case. He is referring, of course, to Tony Campolo, a man who holds the distinction of being the only living prominent evangelical leader to undergo a heresy trial. What instigated the trial was Campolo’s belief that Christ is present in every person, Christian or not. "I do not mean that others represent Jesus for us," he wrote in A Reasonable Faith, a 1983 book aimed at secularists. "I mean that Jesus actually is present in each other person."
They were also upset with two other sentences in the book: "Jesus is the only Savior, but not everybody who is saved by Him is aware that He is the one who is doing the saving," and "Jesus is God because he is fully human." ("By human I mean a full expression of the image of God," he later explained.) The pastors accused him of "semantic mysticism" and "spiritual adultery," while Campolo said he was a victim of "a wave of religious McCarthyism."
To resolve the debate, the Christian Legal Society called a four-member "reconciliation panel" together, and questioned the sociologist-evangelist for six hours. A week later, the panel, headed by theologian J. I. Packer, issued a statement calling Campolo's book "methodologically naïve and verbally incautious."
Joe,
I find that you are not a charitable reader. These are pretty harsh words incommensurate for such a a quick and dirty essay.
For example, you state that Ballmer believes that "religious faith should not influence politics." And yet, you follow that line with a quote from Ballmer stating that "religion functions... often as a challenge to the political order." Is this not a clear statement from Ballmer endorsing the influence of religion upon politics?
Can you not grant Ballmer the nuanced view that perhaps Christians ought not to associate the Christian faith with some concrete political platform, or seek political power at all costs, yet should nevertheless strive to effect social and political change as a necessary element of a dynamic Christian faith? That doesn't seem like a stretch to me.
For example, Tom Delay and Martin Luther King Jr. are both Christians who influenced the political order. Isn't it rational to believe that influencing the political order is good, but perhaps Christians these days should be a little bit more like Martin Luther King Jr. and a little bit less like Tom Delay?
You also lambast Ballmer for mentioning Tony Campolo's "heresy trial." I don't find his words misleading at all. In his essay, he predicts that people will question his theology because of his politics. By mentioning the Campolo affair, he is implying that Campolo's theological beliefs were targeted because he is politically liberal.
That's strikes me as a straightforward intimation of his beliefs regarding the best explanation of the Campolo heresy trial. You may disagree with that explanation, which is fine. The proper reaction, though, is to present evidence as to why you think Ballmer is wrong, not to simply state that he is dishonest. That's what a charitable reader should do. As it is, your post strikes me as smug, hasty, and unfair.
Nonsense. It is uncharitable to call political affiliations "blasphemy." It is accurate to call equating current evangelical political activism (which I oppose) "to impose their vision of a moral order on all of society" or to equate even that with "17th-century Massachusettes"; indeed, I doubt the honesty of anyone who uses the term "theocracy" in the current debate, because no one--but no one--is in favor of that (though some few Dominionists are incautious in their rhetoric and give rise to the suspicion they might be).
C'mon, when someone writes an obvious diatribe like this, it isn't being dishonest or uncharitable to note the obvious: that political propaganda is fundamentally dishonest, and that this is no exception, indeed, is a blatant example.
Now, if you want to point out that political propaganda from the right is also often rather flatly dishonest, then we have an interesting balance point going.
Take care,
PGE
If Joe is being uncharitable then we ought to mimic Joe and be ourselves more uncharitable from time to time.
This guy is so obvious in his attempt at propoganda that it makes me wonder why he even bothered. I can't imagine a single evangelical I know reading this trash and saying, "You know, he's got a point!"
...there is no particular constraint on them placed by tradition, the historic church, or the Bible.
Rather odd, coming from a member of a heretical sect, as seen by Apostolic Christianity...
Not only is their no orthodoxy behind his evangelicalism,...
= "He's not religiously correct." You know, the religious analog of political correctness.
First of all, no matter what your view, it is obvious that making abortions illegal would increase the death rate of women that seek them, and the fact that some laws are stupid is no excuse to make more stupid laws. And I am wondering about smoking and drinking being "often more restricted" than abortion. Are you saying that it's because minors aren't allowed to buy beer and cigarettes, but are allowed to be able to get abortions? So what?
That's a bizarre equivalence that really shows just how much some "pro-lifers" care about the quality of life.
But there's more, evidently:
That is pretty racist of you.
Nonsense indeed. Speaking of obvious political musings, here we go again with not one, but two liberal cliches - young women dying from abortions, and racism because the word slavery was used. Good little liberal!
The idea of young women dying from abortions comes from a time when to have a child out of wedlock was worse than facing death. This is no longer the case.
And racist? Please! This is nothing more than a cheap and worn out liberal attack on a well-presented and intelligent argument.
Since Joe won't make Mumon illegal, I hope all the readers of EO do their level best to make him unthinkable.
Sorry Joe, but is my last comment too Ann Coulterish?
jd Sorry Joe, but is my last comment too Ann Coulterish?
Only if by "unthinkable" you were advocating invading his Mumon's home, killing his leaders, and forcing him to convert to Christianity
jd Sorry Joe, but is my last comment too Ann Coulterish?
Only if by "unthinkable" you were advocating invading Mumon's home, killing his leaders, and forcing him to convert to Christianity
jd Sorry Joe, but is my last comment too Ann Coulterish?
Only if by "unthinkable" you were advocating invading Mumon's home, killing his leaders, and forcing him to convert to Christianity
Actually, there were many among the pro-slavery movement who chanted the pro-choice mantra: I personally don't believe in slavery, but I don't want to impose my views on others.
These folks undoubtedly wanted to make slavery rare, rather than illegal. How democratic (and country-club Republican) of them.
And Mumon, while you're always shrill, you're usually a bit more original than you were with the racism line. That was more worthy of the Daily Kos than this forum.
I found your review sensible.
In addition to bringing out the author's political persuasion and influence, one might also point out that the "religious Left" has been in DC for a couple more decades than the "religious Right" with which the author takes deference.
That old "T" word is being batted around a lot these days in Leftie circles and deserves its own column. Many are mixing the Reconstructionists & Domionists, (though I personally disagree with both) and the coupling any evangelical voice for justice and sanity into the mix.
http://evangelicalperspective.blogspot.com/2006/06/thoughts-on-iraq-war.html
On Tony Campolo:
I had a unique insiders view on the heresy trial as an intern for a ministry that was affiliated with Campolo (right place at the right time/wrong place at the wrong time). My view is that the heresy trial had nothing (meaning zero) to do with Campolo's political views. During his speaking engagements at the time, he was making a name for himself as a next "Billy Graham" having mass audiences and mass alter calls (with very calvinist messages). When he spoke at liberal arts colleges, he was very hard on liberals, and when he spoke at conservative Bible colleges, he was very hard on conservatives. It was because of his wide spread influence and his provocative style, in my opinion, that he was confronted on being a heretic. The problem was that what can be spoken in a sermon has a different connotation when written word for word in a book. This is why he has merely written off as a shoddy wordsmith.
What do you mean by oppose? It doesn't follow that just because evangelicals believe homosexuality is wrong that particular policies such as no gay marriage, the prohibition on gays in the military or in the case of the religious right having the state interfere in private, consensual sex between adults must follow. Likewise with abortion. There is a distinction between political policies that one may support or oppose and religious beliefs. You seem to dismiss this distinction by saying this is equating religion with 'a private affair' like whether one perfers to have the toilet paper hung so it comes out clockwise or counter-clockwise.
Also while Sullivan has taken an unorthodox position on homosexuality (although IMO the obsession many 'orthodox' have with homosexuality is decidedly unorthodox...as Sullivan pointed out on CNN recently when some commentator said Jesus said little about the topic in the Bible, Jesus didn't say anything about it. Today, though, a person who never heard of Christianity before being introduced to it by reading those on the religious right would think opposing homosexuality was 60% of its doctrine) he is quite orthodox in many respects. On marriage in particular he is very tough on divorce...even tougher than the Catholic Church which while it hasn't accepted divorce often uses annulment as a type of virtual divorce.
To me it's a no-brainer. (I know, I know, stop laughing.)
I see one of these slick, white-suited Super-Evangelicals like Benny Hinn, I think Jesus would slug him and put the sandal-leather to him. Same goes for some smarmy, Chamber of Commerce real-estate salesperson in an SUV - your classic GOP evangelical. Or people who are simply loathsome because of their character defects - like Ann Coulter or Hugh Hewitt. Jesus would smite these people down the way Dobson goes after a puppy with a rolled-up magazine.
Jesus would be hanging out at your local food-distribution center. He'd be feeding, clothing, healing and ministering to the least among us. You'd find him at AIDs clinics in inner cities giving comfort and hope to those at the height of despair. Jesus would not look kindly on tax cuts for millionnaires and refusals to raise the minimum wage. He would not approve of our turning the Holy Land into a blood-soaked sandbox.
In almost every way imaginable, from social to national to international policy, I see Jesus leaning left - for the very obvious reason that America was founded on fairly liberal ideals, and it is the current domination of conservative politicians and media outlets that have skewed our national character in a strikingly radical direction.
Reminds of that old bumper sticker: "Jesus is coming... and boy, is he pissed!"
Joe,
Great comeback to Balmer. Now as an athiest, I should be cheering on Balmer and Sullivan and all the other fearmongers crying "wolf" over theocracy, but it's all just a dystopian fantasy of liberals. There are many people who oppose abortion on purely secular grounds, such as Christopher Hitchens and Nat Hentoff.
Theocracy may be a threat in the future, but we won't properly recognize it as such if we continue to cry wolf over what are really political disputes.
I think you are right to point out that the majority of Christians have no desire for a Christian theocracy. In an earlier post you mentioned how Tim Challies put forward a criteria for judging someone to be a Christian that excluded both Sullivan and yourself. There will never be a Christian monolith in America, Christians will make sure of that.
No doubt Jesus would be involved in ministering to the poor and those suffering from AIDS. So are many evangelical Christians today.
But why would someone with infinite wisdom who taught so much on money offer such tired prescriptions as raises in the minimum wage? Why don't we simply raise it to a million dollar annual salary for everyone and wipe out poverty entirely?
Having read and studied the Bible for years in many translations including the original languages, I have yet to find the passage where Jesus says, "Sell all you have and give it to Caesar."
And yet the evangelical left seems to argue that unless you support governmental antipoverty plans (usually involving a redistribution scheme of some sort),without regard to their actual effectiveness, you are not following Christ.
It is simply not enough to talk about helping the poor. Remember that it was Judas who was most exercised about the wasteful extravagance of perfume whose contents could have been sold and the profits used to alleviate poverty.
The Gospel is far more than some wishy washy "let me vote Democratic and help the unfortunate so I can feel good about myself" program. It is a call to repentance and a radical reordering of all priorities in recognition of the Lordship of Jesus Christ.
The problem with most Liberal Evangelicals is that they have confused governmental policy prescriptions that intend good with actually doing good and then go on to demonize Christians who offer different solutions as indifferent to the suffering of others.
There are many people who oppose abortion on purely secular grounds, such as Christopher Hitchens and Nat Hentoff.
I don't think Hitchens opposes abortions. If he does it seems odd that he raked Mother Theressa over the coals for opposing abortion in his book on her.
kwbr:
Please save yourself the trouble. Discussing anything with Raven is like looking for logic in all the wrong places.
The posts of Raven and Mumon show one of the major differences between liberals and conservatives. We argue that they are wrong, (sometimes dishonest or maybe even stupid). However, they argue that we are racist, bigoted homophobes who won't raise the minimum wage because we don't care about anyone but rich people and in fact we hate all those poor people. That is really the position that their arguments leave them. There can't be any principled stands against the minimum wage or abortion or gay marriage or, you name it. We are, therefore, EVIL. The mainstream press used to parrot this stupidity, but they can't get away with it so much anymore.
Speaking of stupidity, Boonton's logic tells him that because Jesus didn't mention homosexuality it must be unorthodox to be concerned about it. Therefore, concern about pedophilia or bestiality or stealing bandwidth is unorthodox as well and shouldn't worry us. Incredible.
jd Sorry Joe, but is my last comment too Ann Coulterish?
Only if by "unthinkable" you were advocating invading Mumon's home, killing his leaders, and forcing him to convert to Christianity
What instigated the trial was Campolo’s belief that Christ is present in every person, Christian or not.
And animals too. I seem to remember his opposition to deer hunting had something to do with this. He perhaps didn't mean it quite the same way as humans but his opposition was along the lines of God created deer, creation reflects God's glory, so the glory of God is inherent in deer and so why would you want to shoot one. Of course, maybe he could have taken the time to read his Bible and see that meat was given to man as a gift from God. Then again, I've read a couple of his books and never had a strong feeling he had much of a grasp on scripture.
One thing that liberals (including liberal Christians) never tackle about the healing ministry of Christ: Why didn't Jesus heal everyone, even in his own time? He was pretty selective, wasn't he? I think I know why. It's because he didn't care about anyone else, other than the ones he healed. It's obvious he didn't love them, because they weren't rich enough or they weren't the right color or the right sexual orientation. That's why he didn't heal them or make them all filthy rich. It's because Jesus was really a conservative masquerading as a liberal. The press only saw Him healing the sick, raising the dead, comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable. That's all the sound bite the Aramaic News Dispatch needed. Jesus was just allright with them.
If only they had been more aggressive in their news coverage they would have discovered His True Bad Self.
jd: You can search every item I've ever posted here (not that you will, but trust me on this, OK?) and I assure you that you will not find a single reference to race or racism, bigotry or homosexuality. These are not topics that interest me, and I have no particular disagreement with anyone here regarding those issues.
If you take issue with a comment of mine, I'll be happy to discuss it with you or any other party - but there's no need to mischaracterize my general position.
In the context of this thread, I've simply noted that no self-described evangelical christian that I am aware of has demonstrated the classic virtue demonstrated by Jesus Christ of compassion for the poor and downtrodden. This isn't to beat you over the head with a club - how would I know whether you donate your time to charitable works or not?
My main point is that, no matter how you slice it, Jesus espoused classically liberal positions and in no way would he have affined with conservative Republicans.
Here's an illustration of what I mean: Imagine that Russ Feingold and Dick Cheney are having dinner at a restaurant - separate tables, natch. Russ leaves first, and out by his limo is a homeless vet with a "Spare change" cardboard sign. I can easily imagine Russ buying this man a dinner, giving him some spare change, engaging him in some fashion. Might happen, might not. But it is imaginable.
Cheney? No. Dick might sort of kick at the vet, screaming at him to "get the f-k away from my car!" but that's all I can imagine him doing. Because that's the Republican mindset. I've got mine, and get the hell away from my car or I'm calling the cops.
Jesus would be a liberal - that's just plain obvious. And then, there's even a contingent of people here at EO would argue that not only won't Good Works get one to Heaven, but that a true Christian will avoid doing Good Works so as to demonstrate their spiritual purity. First time I read that argument here, I nearly felt my head explode. Rather than figure out how to use your evangelicizing for bettering the world around you, some of you have twisted the tenets of your doctrine around to not only excuse yourselves from participation in charitable endeavors, but to actually excoriate those who do donate a bit of effort.
The bit about the camel going through the eye of a needle isn't, to my way of thinking, a condemnation of wealth for wealth's sake, but it's a cautionary admonition to beware the vanity of possessions. Because once you own a lot of things, you start obssessing on protecting them, which means keeping other people away from them and prosecuting those who might be eyeing them too closely. Pretty soon, Mr. Suburban Security System is a pretty far cry away from the example set by everybody's favorite Nazarene.
Hope that helps, jd.
Boonton:
Here is an article on Hitchens that points out his differences with the left on abortion. I wish I could find a more explicit reference.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=6857
Here is Hentoff on abortion:
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/hentoff1.asp
Raven:
Incredible. You just proved my point. Look at your ridiculous caricature of Dick Cheney. He's not a principled opponent of government excess--he's a "screaming, kicking" lunatic who just hates poor people. You really have no awareness of your prejudice.
Your whole post is ridiculous up to the point about the camel going through the eye of a needle. There are certainly dangers in wealth. It's just that the liberal solution is to legalize theft from the rich and give it to the poor. We have seen how well that works in the Great Society and the War on Poverty. We've tried it your way for 70 years now and it has apparently not worked. Because not even George Bush has spent enough for you guys.
As a deacon in my church, it's my calling, my job and duty to Christ and to my fellow man to care for the needy. I do it willingly and it feels great. But we take it very seriously. We make sure that the church's money is spent wisely. Even at that, we make mistakes and we consider it OK because we tend to err on the giving side. But it's absolutely wrong for me and the other deacons to keep on giving money to someone who is abusing us. It is not being good stewards of the money God has given us.
Hope that helps, Raven
Raven,
It is humorous to me that you picked Dick Cheney as your target.
In 2005 the Cheney's gross income was $8,819,006 and of that they gave $6,869,655 to charity. Wow.
Some people like to claim that Jesus did not say anything about homosexuality. But he actually did address the core issue (when discussing divorce with the Pharisees):
"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator `made them male and female,' and said, `For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh' ? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
What is Balmer trying to say?
On one hand, he states
"Religion functions best outside the political order, and often as a challenge to the political order. When it identifies too closely with the state, it becomes complacent and ossified, and efforts to coerce piety or to proscribe certain behavior in the interests of moral conformity are unavailing.
But at every turn, he lambastes the Religious Right/Republicans (no distinction) for not implementing his own religious vision through the political order.
Balmer also states,
"We could have a lively discussion and even vigorous disagreement over whether it is incumbent upon the government to provide services to the poor, but those who argue against such measures should be prepared with some alternative program or apparatus."
Does he want religion to function within the political order, or not?
I don't know how hard Balmer has explored what other "alternative programs or apparatuses" may be supported by evangelicals, but I suspect they would not be political enough for him.
Robert,
I read the frontpagemag article and the only thing I found was this:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=6857I hunted on Google a bit more and found http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_200110/ai_n9000823
Over on http://www.lipmagazine.org/articles/featpostel_56.htm he was interviewed about his attack on Mother Theresa
So maybe you're right, I find people who say Hitchens is pro-choice but others say he is anti-abortion. His argument that he is squimish on abortion may just indicate that he is not 100% pro-choice (abortion in America is sadly a very unmoderate debate....on one side is 100% pro-choicers and the other 100% pro-lifers but few sit between except, probably, the majority of Americans). There may be an Atlantic article but I can't get to it since it's behind the old $$$$ wall.
Some people like to claim that Jesus did not say anything about homosexuality. But he actually did address the core issue (when discussing divorce with the Pharisees):
Not really. No one would read that to say this is how it should be for everyone. For example, how about people who choose a celibrate life? Are they violating Jesus's command? Take it literally or too literally and you'd have to say yes.
jd--RE: Raven and Mumon
I think you do Raven a bit of a disservice here lumping him in with Mumon. I disagree with Raven about most things (more on that in a moment). But at least he can present a dispassionate and coherent argument. As for Mummon...well, the least said the soonest mended. I really can't comment overall on Boonton's posts since they are way too numerous and way too windy for me to stay awake through.
Raven: Aside from Eric and Lisa's point about Cheney's charitable contributions, do you really believe that nonsense about Feingold? Sorry, I live in Wisconsin and have followed Feingold's self-serving career trajectory from UW-Madison to Harvard to state rep from Sun Prarie (where else) to Senator. I've heard him speak at his "town meetings". The guy comes across like a slick-talking used car salesman. If you really think he is so compassionate, why don't you suggest to him that he purchase the lot next to his own home and donate it to Habitat for Humanity? He loves the poor as long they are far, far away from him.
Boonton wrote:
"Not really. No one would read that to say this is how it should be for everyone. For example, how about people who choose a celibrate life? Are they violating Jesus's command? Take it literally or too literally and you'd have to say yes."
Nobody is claiming that marriage is for everyone. The NT honors singleness as an option, and Jesus himself was single. But I believe Jesus is quite clear that, when it comes to marriage, the Creator's intent involved a man and a woman.
cheese:
I would agree with your post about Raven Vs. Mumon. Raven is no Mumon. After all, Mumon's a Buddhist. He believes some fat guy with a Mona Lisa smile is the height of humanity and self-actualization.
It's just that in this case both Mumon and Raven exhibited one of the trademarks of the modern liberal. They think conservatives are evil. Mumon accused Joe of racism; Raven made Cheney a crazed hatemonger. It's typical liberalism. Not classical liberalism, but modern liberalism as in anti-Christian, and anti-conservative.
I would also agree on Boonton. Way too windy. I do believe that he could trot out facts to refute every factual argument he has ever made. He reminds me of the guy described in Twain's Puddn'head Wilson:
"It is easy to find fault, if one has that disposition. There was once a man who, not being able to find any other fault with his coal, complained that there were too many prehistoric toads in it."
jd: ;)
Raven:
You might want to study the scholarship of political scientist Stephen Monsma (http://publicpolicy.pepperdine.edu/academics/faculty/monsma/). His work indicates that inner-city faith-based social welfare programs are dominated by conservative evangelicals. This isn't to say every conservative evangelical is generous and all liberals are stingy, but it does challenge the stereotype you've seemed to have bought into.
I also seem to recall a correlation between voting patterns and philanthropy. The "redder" the state, the more per-captia giving...or something along those lines.
My problem with Balmer isn't his opposition to the alliance between evangelicals and republicans, but rather his "progressive vision" for evangelicals. Since we evangelicals are primarily interested in sharing the Gospel, it seems counter-productive to align ourselves too closely with any political party. Balmer mistakenly equates Jesus's injunctions of personal sacrifice with support for socialism. But clearly you cannot be generous with other people's money.
"Balmer mistakenly equates Jesus's injunctions of personal sacrifice with support for socialism. But clearly you cannot be generous with other people's money."
Excellent point!
Yikes - incoming.
OK, E&L first: Yes, our VP looks to be pretty generous. Astonishingly so. So it behooves us to peek behind the curtain, as it were.
Democrats pointed out that Cheney receives deferred compensation from Halliburton under an arrangement he made in 1998, and also retains stock options. He has pledged to give after-tax proceeds of the stock options to charity.
So yes, we see him giving $6 million (keeping $2 million for his trouble), which is a good thing - nobody can fault it. Then again, the entire $8 million is basically coming from Halliburton. Same company that's getting most of the Iraq reconstruction work, and an awful lot of the Katrina reconstruction work. In a way, this is "reverse charity," whereby Cheney has rigged the system to move cash from the Treasury into Halliburton's coffers, and Halliburton tips its hat to Cheney. I'm sure their financial ties are a lot deeper than what we see. So Cheney keeps the $2 mill, and...
In 2002, Cheney's total assets were valued at between $19.1 million and $86.4 million.
And when he leaves his office, he will be in very high demand as a corporate consultant, a lobbyist, and he will be made a director of the board on dozens of major corporations, including Halliburton. It is in his interest to exhibit generosity because he is milking the system expertly and lining his pockets as fast as he can. With our money. He's a genuine "bad guy," right out of a comic book.
jd: "Even at that, we make mistakes and we consider it OK because we tend to err on the giving side. But it's absolutely wrong for me and the other deacons to keep on giving money to someone who is abusing us."
I think you've expressed the liberal attitude toward charity in a succinct fashion. Compare welfare in the 60s and 70s with how most states implement it today and you're talking apples to oranges. I dispute your assertion that "we've tried it your way for 70 years." The mechanism of providing food stamps and financial assistance to the poorest and the destitute, the laid-off, and the disaster-afflicted has changed a great deal. It's gotten very difficult to obtain such money. Very difficult.
Nobody likes the idea of what Reagan referred to as "welfare queens in designer jeans," but as you note, the optimal system will never be perfect, and it's best to err in the compassionate direction, for there, but for the grace of God, etc.
Cheesehead: Quit ruining my self-delusion. I'm trying to generate enthusiasm for a Feingold/Warner in '08 kind of thing, and you're not helping.
And lastly, anon: Well, I'd expect inner-city faith-based organizations to be largely Christian and strongly evangelical. Don't need a political scientist to tell me that (but thanks for the link - I'll take a look). To reprise my argument as a syllogism: Evangelicals tend to run conservative. Conservatives tend to run Republican. Jesus was not a conservative.
I would like to point out that the sentences in my comment far above were written during a flashback to another life, a life before English grammar.
And aliens possessed me.
And I was under hypnosis.
And . . .
Something happened, because there's one whole big syntactic mess up there that just ain't gonna come clean without a rewrite, and it's too late for that.....
Cheers,
PGE
I would like to point out that the sentences in my comment far above were written during a flashback to another life, a life before English grammar.
And aliens possessed me.
And I was under hypnosis.
And . . .
Something happened, because there's one whole big syntactic mess up there that just ain't gonna come clean without a rewrite, and it's too late for that.....
Cheers,
PGE
I would like to point out that the sentences in my comment far above were written during a flashback to another life, a life before English grammar.
And aliens possessed me.
And I was under hypnosis.
And . . .
Something happened, because there's one whole big syntactic mess up there that just ain't gonna come clean without a rewrite, and it's too late for that.....
Cheers,
PGE
The Raven wrote;
Then again, the entire $8 million is basically coming from Halliburton.
I question your line of reasoning. At first your claim was along the lines of Cheney is a bad guy who wouldn't give a dime to a bum outside a restaurant because, as you put it, "I've got mine, and get the hell away from my car or I'm calling the cops."
But since now that ive demonstrated to you that Cheney does indeed give, you've moved the goal posts. No longer is it about the "Ive got mine..." selfishness angle, it's two new problems.
The first problem with Cheney's charity seems to be where he gets his money from
Then again, the entire $8 million is basically coming from Halliburton.
And the second problem seems to be
It is in his interest to exhibit generosity because he is milking the system expertly and lining his pockets as fast as he can. With our money.
He's giving because he's selfish. Not sure if I have that right, but it's no longer that he won't give to the bum outside, it is now that he'll give, but he'll only do it with the governments money (You seem to be saying) and in full view of the public?
Alright, allow me to force you to move the goal posts even further as I defend the Vice President against your spurious, ill informed attacks.
In a way, this is "reverse charity," whereby Cheney has rigged the system to move cash from the Treasury into Halliburton's coffers, and Halliburton tips its hat to Cheney.
In order for this to be true, Cheney, who quit working for Halliburton to run for Vice President in 2000, would have had to have known we were going to go to war with Iraq then and made deals with Halliburton back then for money they wouldn't make until years later.
Do you seriously believe such nonesense?
From the very article you linked to
Democrats pointed out that Cheney receives deferred compensation from Halliburton under an arrangement he made in 1998, and also retains stock options. He has pledged to give after-tax proceeds of the stock options to charity.
So according to The Raven, Dick Cheney made deals with Halliburton in 1998 to go to war with Iraq in 2003 so that he could give bunches of money to charity.
But it isn't bad enough, The Raven, that you get the past wrong, you are now predicting the future! You think Cheney isn't generous with money because of what you predict he will do in the future!
And when he leaves his office, he will be in very high demand as a corporate consultant, a lobbyist, and he will be made a director of the board on dozens of major corporations, including Halliburton. It is in his interest to exhibit generosity because he is milking the system expertly and lining his pockets as fast as he can. With our money.
Unbelievable. You don't have enough reason to hate this guy now so your wishful thinking of what he might do to a bum outside a restaurant is demonstrably false that you have to predict how evil he's going to be in the future.
Not only are you incapable of accepting reality and the facts that are given to you, but you are so sure of your own self righteousness and the evilness of the Republicans that you must believe that if they appear to be doing good things now, it is only because they are planning evil things for the future.
You're too much.
Also, sorry for multiple comments. Network problems. (but seeing's how Joe had the same problem above . . . )
Cheers,
PGE
anon:
You're arguement is not a syllogism. It is a set of assertions
E=C
C=R
J~C
How you arrrive at J~C is beyond me. How do you go from calls for personal sacrifice to state redistribution of wealth? Jesus's parables about money (e.g. the talents and the workers in the vineyard) presuppose an economic system that is hardly progressive. One might argue that he wasn't endorsing that system, but rather using the existing social scene to illustrate a different point. But so what? The broader point is that it is religious conservatives that on average give the most time and money. You seem to be suggesting that generally those that want limited government don't care about the poor. This is an empirically false assertion. I'm not aware of any gospel account that suggests Jesus preferred a particular political solution to helping the poor.
The notion that supporting government safety nets equals compassion is simply wrong. Set aside the unintended consequences of the social welfare system (such as the huge fraction of unwed mothers in the inner city -- check Jane Galt's writings for an economist's take on the the connection), support for the social welfare system for many is a way to alleviate guilt for doing nothing personally about the challenges posed by poverty.
anon:
You're arguement is not a syllogism. It is a set of assertions
E=C
C=R
J~C
How you arrrive at J~C is beyond me. How do you go from calls for personal sacrifice to state redistribution of wealth? Jesus's parables about money (e.g. the talents and the workers in the vineyard) presuppose an economic system that is hardly progressive. One might argue that he wasn't endorsing that system, but rather using the existing social scene to illustrate a different point. But so what? The broader point is that it is religious conservatives that on average give the most time and money. You seem to be suggesting that generally those that want limited government don't care about the poor. This is an empirically false assertion. I'm not aware of any gospel account that suggests Jesus preferred a particular political solution to helping the poor.
The notion that supporting government safety nets equals compassion is simply wrong. Set aside the unintended consequences of the social welfare system (such as the huge fraction of unwed mothers in the inner city -- check Jane Galt's writings for an economist's take on the the connection), support for the social welfare system for many is a way to alleviate guilt for doing nothing personally about the challenges posed by poverty.
cheese:
Sorry, but I have to take back any concessions I made to you regarding Raven being less well, you know, than Mumon. I really can't discern differences among Moonbats. There might be differences, but they're still Moonbats.
I forgot that when I wrote an earlier post I was thinking that Raven might compare the "liberals' attitude toward charity" with the attitude of deacons in a church. I never dreamed he would say it. It's an absolutely ridiculous comparison. Raven thinks that liberals spending other people's money, taken from them by act of congress, is equivalent to deacons using a church's funds for outreach and caregiving. Incredible. The intentional ignorance of such thinking makes we want to go Ann coulterish, if I were capable of going Ann Coulterish.
jd, you have proved time and again that you are imminently capable of going Ann Coulter. You are one of the least charitable, harshest persons I have ever encountered on a blog. I don't think you are a very good ambassador for your faith.
jd: "if I were capable of going Ann Coulterish."
Here's how I'd define "going Coulter":
1. Make a up a nice, big, tasty strawman. Create a rhetorical target of a "liberal," which consists of equal parts Communist radical, Black Flag anarchist, and pathetic grannie with a crocheted cap.
2. Now that you've set your target up, go after it with wild accusations of theft, fiscal irresponsibility, and social ineptitude. Accuse your target of every immaginable sin and wickedness - don't hold back, now! That liberal wants all 13-year-old girls to have an abortion (whether they're pregnant or not) right after they finish posing for photos on a lurid, liberal-run pornography website. You get the idea. Run with it.
3. Attach issues that really concern all Americans equally and have broad, bipartisan support, to your target, so as to tarnish them by false association. Exhibit A in this category is the term "tree-hugger," which posits that caring for the environment is a "liberal" issue, that alarm over the inability to dispose of nuclear waste is a liberal cause, that the search for alternative energy sources is a liberal cause celebre. You really want to work this one, so that at the end of the day, the only persons left standing in the conservative camp are cheap hacks (Hi, Gregg Easterbrook) and paid corporate shills (Hi, Marc Morano).
That's how one would go Coulter - although I can't imagine why.
That's how one would go Coulter - although I can't imagine why.
Raven, one needs look no further than Coulter’s bank account to imagine why. Being the diva of the rabid right is very profitable. Though my reactions to her bile have been soothed by an observation I came across recently – Coulter is not a pundit, she is a performance artist.
That's how one would go Coulter - although I can't imagine why.
Raven, one needs look no further than Coulter’s bank account to imagine why. Being the diva of the rabid right is very profitable. Though my reactions to her bile have been soothed by a spot-on observation I came across recently – Coulter is not a pundit, she is a performance artist.
Rob Ryan:
Kind of overreacting a little bit, aren't you? Just look at the crap Raven is accusing me of (oh, wait no he's talking about Ann Coulter isn't he) in his post and then tell me how uncharitable I am.
And really Rob, you're being awfully judgmental. I thought only us hypocritical Christians could do that.
So I'm the most uncharitable person you've met on a blog. Let me ask you one question. Have you ever been to Daily Kos?
jd: Woah - calm down there, son.
I have not accused you of anything. You said you didn't want to cross the line into Coulter territory, and I described what I perceive that to be.
Any connections you draw are yours alone. The point under discussion is not you, it's about whether if, assuming Jesus were here today, would Jesus display characteristics that we most often ascribe to those termed as "liberal" or those who identify as "conservative." The challenge is most difficult for those who would posit that the spirit of the teachings of Jesus Christ, the manifestation of the power of Jesus Christ, would more closely affine with somebody like, say, Dick Cheney - a war profiteer - or somebody like, say, Bono, who draws people together through the force of personality and uses his influence to do things like, oh, for example, reduce human suffering in Africa.
And I maintain that this question is so self-evident as to be beyond discussion.
raven:
And I have shown that it's not self-evident, and that your assumptions are based on ridiculous caricatures of what you think Republicans and conservatives are. And that's beyond discussion.
Raven,
You wrote,
The point under discussion is not you, it's about whether if, assuming Jesus were here today, would Jesus display characteristics that we most often ascribe to those termed as "liberal" or those who identify as "conservative."
Can you be a little more specific about what you consider those characteristics to be? (Aside from the big ones you've illustrated for us, like belonging to the chamber of commerce, being a real estate salesman, driving an SUV, cursing homeless veterans, etc.)
Not sure what you're asking, berean. Let me take a guess and assume you're asking what the characteristics of conservatism are.
This is a tough question, because the idea of conservatism is extremely abstract and it applies to a number of areas of human activity and consciousness. The first approach I considered was analytical, i.e., to present conservatism as it manifests in disparate instances - classical, intellectual, moral, social, traditional. In doing that, I found that few people would qualify as belonging to one school of thought, and that there were areas of overlap between types of conservatism.
(The same thing, of course, applies to definitions of liberalism.)
Instead, then, for clarity's sake let's zero in on the fundamental issue that seems to cleave us as a species into two groups; namely, what is a person's general outlook on the nature of man?
In the case of conservatives, it would appear that the proponent of the philosophy believes, at heart, that people simply cannot be trusted. This deep-rooted suspicion can extend inward, also, such that the conservative may hold doubts as to whether he himself is a trustworthy individual. In the ultimate outcome, the individual believes himself to be untrustworthy.
Consider Erikson's stages of psychosocial development:
Infant
Trust vs Mistrust
Needs maximum comfort with minimal uncertainty to trust himself/herself, others, and the environment
Toddler
Autonomy vs Shame and Doubt
Works to master physical environment while maintaining self-esteem
Preschooler
Initiative vs Guilt
Begins to initiate, not imitate, activities; develops conscience and sexual identity
School-Age Child
Industry vs Inferiority
Tries to develop a sense of self-worth by refining skills
Adolescent
Identity vs Role Confusion
Tries integrating many roles (child, sibling, student, athlete, worker) into a self-image under role model and peer pressure
Young Adult
Intimacy vs Isolation
Learns to make personal commitment to another as spouse, parent or partner
Middle-Age Adult
Generativity vs Stagnation
Seeks satisfaction through productivity in career, family, and civic interests
Older Adult
Integrity vs Despair
Reviews life accomplishments, deals with loss and preparation for death
These critical stages in life development can be thought of as forks in the road. When we come to them, our personalities are forever colored afterward by the distinct tint these decisions convey. Back to question at hand. It isn't hard to see that whether a person becomes largely conservative or liberal in outlook is arguably established at infancy. Those who hew conservative will have formulated a sense of the world as being a mistrustful place, fraught with danger.
Thus, the conservative will operate with greater comfort in a more structured environment. A rulebook would help. A constant father figure, all-seeing and all-knowing, would be welcomed. Simultaneously, the conservative would wish for fairly rigid controls on the behavior of others. It isn't enough to master oneself, rather, it's best when all conform to a basic set of behaviors. This makes life consistent and predictable.
I won't belabor the point by presenting today's headlines, but in this light it's quite clear why the conservatives at Redstate, Ace of Spades HQ, Captains Quarters, and our own Joe Carter take a very dim view of such notions as civil rights and secular government. Such things allow for randomness and unpredictable outcomes. Freedom of the press means that newspapers might exhibit the temerity of printing almost anything. Freedom of speech means that people might express any possible opinion on any subject. And the possibility of gay marriage has led some commentators to opine that people might marry their pets or toasters. In all such cases, we see the conservative firmly on the road of mistrust. They expect the worst of people and view mankind as a potential source of danger and chaos.
The problem is compounded by the fact that life requires us to be flexible, and that we will be in almost continuous interaction with people who have taken the alternate stage of development. A "moonbat," to borrow Malkin's pejorative, is incomprehensible to the pure conservative, because such a person is operating from a fundamentally different set of assumptions about how the world and its denizens operate.
Because social cues may not immediately clue an individual as to which type of person one is dealing with - liberal or conservative - the conservative finds tremendous value in "holding back," or presenting a kind of false front. You could term this as "one's social face," or "how you act in public." Thus, we have the false smile, the faux handshake, the whispered comment behind the back. There's a notion here that a person has a "real" aspect, but this is generally hidden and what is exposed to the world at large is a carefully cultivated facade. That's where we have Jerry Falwell bellowing from the pulpit Sunday morning, and dallying with a prostitute later that afternoon. That's where we have the perfectly coiffed real estate agent with a hidden agenda, who fobs off an undesirable property on a clueless buyer, but still feels virtuous driving to church in an SUV with "Support the Troops" magnets on the bumper. The very concept of social management is arguably a conservative defense mechanism.
Jesus of Nazareth, to return to the question at hand, was demonstrating by his behavior that he'd made the other choice. In his interactions he was genuine not false, aspirational not fearful, and expressive of a view of humanity in which we would truly "love our neighbors as ourselves." Everything that emerges from this, a sense of tolerance for others, comfort with the marginalized, and so forth, seems more in accord with a trustful outlook.
Lest anyone feel polarized by the above, I would point out that a decision such as "trust vs mistrust" is not considered to be an "all-or-nothing" proposition. That is, a person might go 60/40 one way or the other on any of these presumed stages of life. We test, we discover, we learn. Change is always possible. I certainly hope so.
It isn't hard to see that whether a person becomes largely conservative or liberal in outlook is arguably established at infancy. Those who hew conservative will have formulated a sense of the world as being a mistrustful place, fraught with danger.
Do you really believe this? I know a lot of people that changed from liberal to conservative in mid-life, and some that changed the other way. And some environments that I can think of as being the most “mistrustful” and “fraught with danger” are those that have the most politically liberal constituencies.
Thus, the conservative will operate with greater comfort in a more structured environment. A rulebook would help. A constant father figure, all-seeing and all-knowing, would be welcomed. Simultaneously, the conservative would wish for fairly rigid controls on the behavior of others. It isn't enough to master oneself, rather, it's best when all conform to a basic set of behaviors. This makes life consistent and predictable.
Could you not take the same argument and apply it to the politically liberal viewpoint just as well? In many areas it’s the liberal approach that calls for greater oversight and control and a more paternalistic structure.
In all such cases, we see the conservative firmly on the road of mistrust. They expect the worst of people and view mankind as a potential source of danger and chaos.
Again, it seems that you could say the same thing about the politically liberal. It seems that mistrust plays a big part these days. That last line could have come out of “An Inconvenient Truth”.
...the conservative finds tremendous value in "holding back," or presenting a kind of false front.
Thus, we have the false smile, the faux handshake, the whispered comment behind the back. There's a notion here that a person has a "real" aspect, but this is generally hidden and what is exposed to the world at large is a carefully cultivated facade.
That's where we have Jerry Falwell bellowing from the pulpit Sunday morning, and dallying with a prostitute later that afternoon. That's where we have the perfectly coiffed real estate agent with a hidden agenda, who fobs off an undesirable property on a clueless buyer, but still feels virtuous driving to church in an SUV with "Support the Troops" magnets on the bumper. The very concept of social management is arguably a conservative defense mechanism.
Your theory of conservatism as pathological is not one that I think has widespread acceptance. Your recurrent theme of Christians and conservatives as some kind of sinister Stepford stereotypes is one that exists in your own mind more than it does in reality. I am wondering if you really personally know very many (by the way, I think you have Falwell confused with somebody else – I’ll leave that for you to settle with him).
These hackneyed stereotypes that you keep trotting out… do you actually know any “perfectly coiffed real estate agent with a hidden agenda, who fobs off an undesirable property on a clueless buyer”? Or did you make that one up? I think you realize that these characterizations are nasty. Do you realize that they are not taken seriously?
Jesus of Nazareth, to return to the question at hand, was demonstrating by his behavior that he'd made the other choice. In his interactions he was genuine not false, aspirational not fearful, and expressive of a view of humanity in which we would truly "love our neighbors as ourselves." Everything that emerges from this, a sense of tolerance for others, comfort with the marginalized, and so forth, seems more in accord with a trustful outlook.
What you wrote above about Jesus is fine, but your premise relating to “trust”, as relating to conservatives and liberals, has not been established. And as for Jesus trusting in the “goodness of man”, you might consider the following verses:
"Which of you, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake?
If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him!
Now while he was in Jerusalem at the Passover Feast, many people saw the miraculous signs he was doing and believed in his name. But Jesus would not entrust himself to them, for he knew all men. He did not need man's testimony about man, for he knew what was in a man.
Back to the question at hand – I take your answer to be represented by the following list:
• genuine not false
• aspirational not fearful
• expressive of a view of humanity in which we would truly "love our neighbors as ourselves”
• tolerance for others
• comfort with the marginalized
I’m hitting this ball back over the net to you: except for the “tolerance for others” which needs some qualification (for Jesus was quite intolerant of some people’s behavior), I can accept this list. Now tell me how these characteristics are demonstrated more by liberals than conservatives. We both agree that cheating real estate agents are bad. How about some actual, real-life examples?
H'mm Joe [and berean 77):
I have run through this thread and think we need to take up a couple of issues just a tad, to make sure that we get away from strawmannish stereotypes of evangelical Christians, such as the one exemplified by:
B77 has of course aptly pointed to Matt 19:1 - 6 in which Jesus highlights the Creation order for marriage and family life -- and it is Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve, or Sue and Mary. Our Lord caps off by saying that we should not seek to overturn God's establishment.
Now, further, it is obvious to me that prof Balmer has seriously distorted the core of evangelical thinking: he perhaps doesn't even recognise that the term is an import to the US from British usage. Going back to the days of OICCU and CICCU, evangelicalism has been about a biblically based creedally orthodox Christianity that prioritises the message of repentance and reformation of life in response to the gospel as defined in light of the well-warranted core facts and implications of 1 Cor 15:1 - 11, written AD 55 based on the church's oficial summary of the apostolic testimony dating to the 30's AD.
Probably the most detailed biblical theological exposition of that gospel or penitent faith and salvation based ont he death burial and resurrection of Jesus in fulfillment of the prophecies such as that in Is 53, is in the Epistle of Paul to the Romans.
This epistle is of course highly explicit on precisely the two issues that are caricatured as "distortred faith" and "republican" in the above: sexual perversion as a mark of deep-rooted rebellion against God, and the principle of doing no harm as including of course "thou shalt not kill" [i.e. murder, in Elizabethan English]:
The first could not be more explicit: men reject God and lose control of their passions, which then twist out of control into perversions, including sexual ones. The second requires only this: recognising the humanity of the unborn child [Cf. Lk 1{39 - 45], which makes him/her my neighbour whom I should not harm.
I think that it is a simple fact to note that the texts in question, from ~ 57 - 62 AD, precede the birth of the US' Republican party by almost exactly 1800 years. That a “a professor of American Religion at Barnard College, Columbia University” could so grossly miss out on such basic facts gives a plain picture of how distorted political discourse is in the US, as JD and Eric and Lisa have ably pointed out.
A more accurate summary of the socially conservative position would be to sum it up as reflecting the influences of traditional thinking on morality, which in western culture has especially been shaped by the Judaeo-Christian worldview. But then, that would also require backing away from the "theocrat" propagandistic stereotype, too; through recognising the sterling contribution made to advancing liberty by people working in or strongly influenced by that worldview. In turn, such a recognstion would cut straight across a certain cluster of agendas usually termed "liberal."
So, the triumph of spin over soundness in much of the above is not hard to explain . . . sadly.
Grace, open our eyes
Gordon
PS: I cannot let today pass without noting that yesterday, July 1, was the 90th anniversary of the first day of assaults on the Somme [after a week of bombardments heard all the way to London]. Memorials were held yesterday in France.
On July 1, 1916, the British army -- including many troops from various countries of the British commonwealth and of course Ireland -- lost some 60,000 casualties, about 20,000 dead. [The figures cannot be exact.] It was the worst day in the history of the British army.
The French, with experience at Verdun to tap into, performed far better that terrible day.
Yahoo discusses the memorial in a good review article here.
berean:
I strongly recommend visiting this Website:
http://www.politicalcompass.org/
This asks a battery of questions that, in the form of propositions, attempts to assess a person's political orientation and displays the results on a histogram. It's a more precise instrument than "red-state/blue-state" characterizations offer.
Regarding further examples, I could offer many and still will, if you think this would be helpful. However, my inclination is to suggest that you reflect on your own reading, relationships and life experiences and test them against the thesis I've forwarded. When I perform the same act myself, the results are not uniformly as expected, but they ring true enough to explain much observed phenomena.
Generalizations do not, by definition, attempt to capture 100 percent of the subject matter they describe. And lastly, nature is inclination, not destiny. Have a great holiday and I hope that you - and all EO readers - have an enjoyable break from the routine business of daily life. I'm visiting my parents and I'm looking forward to seeing them.
Those who say that Jesus' views were "liberal" are often the ones who most passionately denounce conservatives for believing the same things that He did. Jesus on several occasions said to those who misrepresented him, "You error, not knowing the scriptures." And what do the scriptures have to say about the 'social issues' of our day? A great deal. They established the basis of conservative philosophy and although they often stray from these principals, conservatives generally know what they are and where they came from.
Many of the things that Jesus taught were intended for individuals and were not intended to be a political science guide, as some Christian liberals would have you think. Examples:
Jesus told the rich man to sell all that he had and give it to the poor. That does not mean that the government has a right to take all that the rich man has and give it to the poor (as taught in the Marxist inspired "liberation theology.") Jesus said "turn the other cheek." Governments should try to do that as well when possible, but that does not mean that they should do nothing to protect themselves or their neighbors from enslavement (as taught by the some extreme left wing churches).
After reading the EO for the past year I have seen a pattern develop where the most outspoken liberals (usually the ones with the shadowy monikers) lash out at those who would quote Jesus to support of their views. The more inclined they are to quote scripture the more vitriolic are the speechs made against them.
Jesus said, "If they hated me, they will hate you also."
TM:
You have hit the nail on the head:
I am astonished for instance at the apparent basic ignorance of Prof Balmer's remarks above.
I can only coherently explain it by the knowledge that by imposing selectively hyperskeptical games on the NT driven by rationalistic and even materialistic philosophical question-begging, many of the liberal theological thinkers have so poisoned the NT well in their minds that they think no-one takes the NT seriously as a revelation from God. So, they resort to the idea that biblical citation is meant only as rhetorical manipulation of the naive and ignorant masses -- i.e. Terry, people like you and me.
What hey never seriously do is actually asses whether their own theories and dismissals have proper warrant. The May 2006 National Geographic article on the Gospel of Judas is a classic of this.
For instance, it simply dismisses Irenaeus as an angry bishop, not informing the readers in that context that he was in fact the disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of John in his old age, and was one of the leading theologians of the church in the late C2, who spoke of the axiomatic nature of the 4 Gospels as being similar to the four compass points and the like. [Forget the further fact that we have citations and allusions of the 4 gospels as authentic right back to 1 Tim, and in the sub apostolic age 96 - 110 in the very first surviving writings of Church Fathers!] Further to this, his characterisation of the GOJ was amply borne out by what the recovered Coptic translation of the document says:
In short, what is going on is an agenda, one that works by suppressing material truth. I then proceeds by Dawkins' notorious quadrilemma to characterise those who take the Bible seriously as ignorant, stupid insane or wicked. Then it proceeds to irresponsible or willful slander.
Sad. How do they err, not acknowledging the Scriptures!
So Paul as all too aptly described:
In this context, your further note is not only an accurate observation, but a revealing one: After reading the EO for the past year I have seen a pattern develop where the most outspoken liberals (usually the ones with the shadowy monikers) lash out at those who would quote Jesus to support of their views.
Onlookers: if you wish to identify that Evangelicals are caught up in merely a political aegenda, you first need to credibly -- Jesus Seminar style question-begging bashing simply will not do -- show that the Morison Challenge and the undelrying message of 1 Cor 15:1 - 11 in light of say Is53, fails:
After watching and participating here for coming on 15 months, I have yet to see a serious engagement of that challenge that comes close to providing a better explanation than the one found in 1 Cor 15. [And the attempt to cite a Uk atheist to dismiss Morison was -- in ignorance -- a citation of someone who plainly willfully distorted the book as a whole. I pointed that out earlier.]
Let us heed the Apostle to the Nations!
+++++++++
Grace, open our eyes
Gordon
Raven, It doesn't matter what you think about Cheney. It only matters what he does:
n one of the largest sums ever donated to charity by a U.S. public official, Vice President Dick Cheney and his wife Lynne gave away nearly $7 million last year to help the poor and to medical research.
According to income tax information released by the White House on Friday, the Cheneys' adjusted gross income in 2005 was $8,819,006.
The sum was largely the result of Mr. Cheney's stock options from Halliburton and royalties from three books written by Mrs. Cheney.
The Cheneys gave more than three-quarters of their income - $6,869,655 - to several charities, including George Washington University's Cardiothoracic Institute and a charity for low-income high school students in the Washington, D.C. area, Capital Partners for Education.
The Cheneys gave more than three-quarters of their income - $6,869,655 - to several charities, including George Washington University's Cardiothoracic Institute and a charity for low-income high school students in the Washington, D.C. area, Capital Partners for Education.
Patrick: Nice to see you've mastered "cut and paste."
Y'know, Cheney earns his White House salary. The Halliburton money is nothing but a windfall for him in the best-case description, and arguably a visible and critical reminder that he is profiting from the war and the occupation of Iraq.
Both for tax benefits and public image, it behooved him to merely retain a pittance of the loot - a lowly $2 million - yet, as I've pointed out, he's going to reap for years to come the rich rewards of his having pumped massive amounts of Treasury funds directly into the relentless, voracious maw of the Halliburton Corporation. Chances are, even after '09 he'll continue to do it. Let's see his income returns then.
But hey, if you want to carry water for Dick Cheney, knock yourself out. When one imagine's Jesus extending a helping hand to others, though, for some reason the image of a man sitting behind a large desk and writing out a check isn't what readily comes to mind.
Gordon, Patrick, Terence:
You guys have more patience than I. I'm glad you have more patience than I. YOu can argue with Raven and thus show to people like Rob Ryan that it's not the faith that makes some people like me cranky or "uncharitable" as he said. But when you are arguing with someone like Raven who believes the caricature of Cheney is real, it's certainly fruitless to believe that he can be convinced. As long as he holds assumptions like that (and I'm sure they are myriad), he will never see anything clearly. All his opinions are clouded by hatred for rich conservatives.
I know whereof I speak. I used to be a liberal (before I quit smoking pot). I used to think like Raven. I used to think the worst of rich folks. But I realized that, to put it simply, I was envious. I realized that not everyone has the smarts or ambition to be rich. It's just an unfair fact of life that not everyone can impact the lives of many people in America or around the world. Most of us are just ordinary folks. That realization changed my whole attitude toward economics and government spending and taxes. I realized that while it's not fair that some people are so much richer than the rest of us, it's not smart to penalize and punish the people who make the world go around. Why would the golden goose keep on laying golden eggs if we beat her up every year around April 15? I could go on and on about this, but this is the single question that anyone --who believes as Raven does that the rich got that way by being greedy--must answer: what makes you think you would act any differently?
Your ability to discuss issues charitably with someone who believes the idiocy of Raven is commendable and it speaks well of the faith. I'm truly sorry that my attitude doesn't.
But it was Jesus who said something about pearls before swine, wasn't it? Matt. 7:6
Raven,
Cut and paste is not an offense. I don't think it is fair for you to knock the guy as uncompassionate when he has done compassionate things. I am not carrying the guy's water. I am just bringing some true facts to the table. I don't think its fair also for you to judge his motivations on his giving either. Al Gore declared something like $385 bucks the same year for charitable giving. The two amounts are miles apart, but I can't judge what Al Gore has done with his money. I genuinely don't know the state of Al Gore's heart. I don't think you know Dick Cheney's either. He and Bush have considerable responsibilities to weigh everyday. I am not implying that they are above reproach. However, I think you should give them the benefit of the doubt.
JD, Patrick, and others:
I am reluctant to get into the side issue that seems to take up so much effort in this thread -- the standard tactic used in EO by those who wish to subvert the blog's underlying message is red herrings intended to lead to a strawman that can then be knocked over [sometimes it backfires bigtime!].
That is why I have focussed on the core issue: how Evangelical Christianity is being willfully distorted by those who should know better, to create a handy object of hate. Balmer is a Prof of American religion at Columbia. If he is ignorant of his falsehoods it is because he has not done due diligence, and that in the interests of his obvious agenda.
The back-forth on Cheney - Gore is equally telling on the attitude issue. The accusation is that conservatives are "mean," and a citation is given that tellingly contrasts the charity record in both the specific case of two US Vice presidents, AND in the broader pattern of per capita giving across states that would reflect the conservative/liberal divide. It should be no surprise that states that support a party that has many positions rooted in the ideas deriving from judaeochristian influences on US culture, would have a higher average per capita giving record. For, giving to the poor and needy is a major plank of Christian teaching and before [and beside] it, of Jewish OT teaching. But plainly the cold facts do not fit the agenda -- so much the worse for the facts.
So, you see in all three cases, the facts cut across the propagandistic picture of mean-spirited conservatives that is being pushed in order to advance several cases where liberty has been confused with license.
I thought that bigotry was supposed to be a big no-no in liberal thinking? [Unfortunately, on the track record of personal attacks, red herrings rushing out to nasty strawmen etc in this blog's comments -- thankfully relatively improved since Joew was forced to make an example of the worst offender with the proverbial shadowy name [or rather crowd of names] -- that is plainly not so.
JD is right to call attention tot he discrepancy.
JD is right too that the demonising of the rich is at root mean spirited and envious. One basic fact -- did you ever get a job, except from a rich man -- directly or indirectly? [Guess who pay the utterly disproportionate majority of taxes . . .] And BTW for every one righ entrepreneur, who notices all the risk takers whose efforts failed? What sort of incentives other than the profits of success do you propose to support the willingness to take such serious and potentially devastating risks?
Let us all pause and reflect on a warning from Aristotle, with the suicide of Athenian Democracy ringing in his memory, and the judicial murder of Socrates stamped in just as deeply.
So, let us hear a telling excerpt from his The Rhetoric: