06.28.05
on worshipping false gods
Greg has a theory going that fundamentalists are completely immune from irony. I think he might be right.
My theory, however, is an altogether different one. It all started with my little piece yesterday about fatherhood, etc. Catholic_girl read that post and made some comments, that I think are, well, dead uterus on, (see link for an explanation of this term.) Plus, any comment that uses the term ‘fuckwit’ must be pretty cool in my book.
Anyway, Catholic_girl, bless her heart made a comment over on the original blog posting at Slice of Laodicea. A response to that comment went something like this:
Ingrid..
It appears your article is jangling all the right nerves.
Truth always offends.
I love it.
Never apologize for Truth.
Ah, the truth. For such a non-malleable construct in the eyes of fundagelicals, it certainly has undergone a number of inexplicable transformations through the years. Truths like: ‘Don’t drink alcohol’, ‘Feminism is bad’ or ‘Conservatism is best’, seem to be manufactured at best.
Things have not always been so. Jesus was all about the proper treatment and status of women, drank enough wine to be considered a drunkard, and would hardly classify as a conservative. However, that non-malleable, absolute, unchangable, incontrovertable truth seems to have *gasp* changed over the years.
Now, I’m all for the truth. I even believe in one absolute truth. I just don’t think fundagelicals should be so damn cavalier about having a corner on it. I mean, for crying out loud, Jesus ministry indubitably delivered the ‘truth’, right? We can all agree upon that.
While delivering the truth, Jesus had to so dumb it down for us that he talked in parables. And, even then, people had a hard time grasping the truth of his message. Thus, it’s hard to understand where this feeling that the truth is easily grasped comes from.
More difficult still is how a fundagelical can come to the understanding that the ‘truth is offensive.’ What’s offensive about the gospel? Doesn’t the very notion of something being offensive fundamentally defy its ability to be ‘good news?’
Believe it or not, I’ve said all that to say this. It’s the groundwork for my theory. Basically, it goes like this:
These fundamentalists have set up a false idol for themselves. They stand and worship not at the altar of an almighty God–but rather, at the altar of conservatism.
Conservatism is their new God.
No longer are they concerned with scripture–rather it’s merely fodder for their personal twisting in order to support the ‘gospel’ of conservatism. Unfortunately, conservatism can’t save you.
There’s a lesson, I think, here for us all. For, while I think I’m right, if you turn this theory on it’s ear, it whispers another truth. It’s quite possible for Liberalism to become a God, too. That’s something for those of us Christians on the other side of the aisle to remember from time to time.
Anytime Christians start serving a god that isn’t God–things get fucked up, and fast.
zalm said,
June 28, 2005 at 4:06 pm
I agree that it’s absurd to suggest that if someone is offended by something we write, it somehow validates our writing as truth. But I don’t think I agree with you that truth, or “good news”, doesn’t have the power to offend. Perhaps we’re dealing with different ideas of what “offensive” means, but it seems to me that the gospel Jesus preached was and still is offensive.
It offended those who thought they were righteous because they followed every letter of the law. It offended those who just wanted to care for people like themselves. It offended those who expected God’s “good news” to include the direct and immediate overthrow of Roman rule.
Jesus offended people so much that they killed him.
I’d like to think that I see Jesus’ gospel as beautiful, unoffensive truth. But if I’m really honest with myself, I think I find it offensive for very similar reasons. It offends my desire to live a safe, comfortable life. It offends my belief that I’m generally a good person. It flies in the face of so much that the world I live in tells me is important.
I agree with you that we each need to be open to the likely possibility that we’ve created a Jesus and a gospel in our own image. And I’m glad you point out that this tendency isn’t just true of fundagelicals. But I think part of the reason we do so is because we’ve been offended by the demands Jesus’ life and death place on us.
Brandon said,
June 28, 2005 at 4:32 pm
I agree, Zalm.
A minor point of clarification–I wrote my piece against the notion that ‘truth ALWAYS offends.’ I didn’t say, though, that Truth CAN NEVER offend. I certainly think that it can wield that power! My comments were most directly aimed at ‘the gospel.’ I do, however, concede that in a sense even the gospel could be offensive–as you point out.
Nonetheless, I think that, as is often the case–fundamentally, we’re in agreement on this one.
ninjanun said,
June 28, 2005 at 6:57 pm
What’s been surprising and overwhelming me in the past few months/years is how the Republican/Conservative agenda has somehow become synonymous with the Gospel. It’s a dangerous path which those who consider themselves Conservative seem to be blind to. I’m thankful, Brandon, that you remind us that Liberalism has that same power, but as you mentioned in your most excellent post entitled “A Slippery Slope”, it seems Conservatives are calling the Kettle black when all the kettle is doing is trying to enter into a religious dialogue with the Pot and call them on thier shit.
ninjanun said,
June 28, 2005 at 6:59 pm
their. Man, english is not my first language (that would be baby talk, which doesn’t know all the exceptions to the “i” before “e” rule).
zalm said,
June 28, 2005 at 9:21 pm
Nonetheless, I think that, as is often the case–fundamentally, we’re in agreement on this one.
Okeydoke. We’re in agreement, um, fundamentally. (I like how you use the f-word so casually with your friends. Heh.) Thanks for clarifying.
Rod Garvin said,
June 29, 2005 at 12:26 am
I think the fetishizing of conservatism at best and the idolizing of it at worst is quite obvious to most Christians, except of course conservative ones as you suggest. Republican Christians seem to believe that their political philosophy either predates-dates the Gospel or is directly derived from it. This is why so many can uncritically support everything Bush does because he wears elephant shaped cuff links and can reference a few Scriptures from time to time, even if taken out of context and used to promote the American empire, rather than the Kingdom of God. But wait, for many conservatives, America is the Kingdom of God…
Patty said,
June 29, 2005 at 8:36 am
You are a genius. I am glad I have found some peers here…
Truth spoken!
Xpatriated Texan said,
June 29, 2005 at 11:25 pm
I think you need look no further than Calvinism for the basis of a Christian religion that provides a defense for the status quo (and that, after all, is what Conservativism does). The rich are wealthy because God favors them with money and the poor have sucky lives because they offended God - or maybe he is just chastizing them because he loves them so well. Regardless, this is the best of all possible worlds and the fact of an all-powerful and good God is all that is needed to back it up.
The Anglican church opposed Calvinism very strongly and Methodism arose in direct opposition to the laissez faire spirtuality that sprung from Calvist dogma. It isn’t a mistake that the heart of Conservative America is the same geographic region where Calvinists settled in large numbers (though they were typically called Anabaptists and Dissenters at the time).
Even Free Trade Economics is nothing more than a re-statement of Calvinist “it is right because it is so” dogma.
XT
Brandon said,
June 30, 2005 at 7:50 am
With all due respect, XT, as a Calvinist, your description of what Calvinists believe is completely foreign to me. Perhaps your brush is a few bristles too wide.
Brian said,
June 30, 2005 at 1:25 pm
XT, I agree with Brandon on this. I too am a Calvinist and was quite amused with your assessment of it. You’re quote, “The rich are wealthy because God favors them with money and the poor have sucky lives because they offended God” seems to come more from your own perceptions of a few rather than actual doctrine. If I’m correct about that, it’s my hope that you would encounter a few more Calvinists who can show you what it’s really about.
Loved the post. I’m new here, so I don’t know much about this place, but boy is it refreshing to find others who still have neurons firing away.
catholic_girl said,
July 5, 2005 at 1:56 pm
Thanks, Brandon. Dead-uterus on — I like that.
It really pisses me off when fundies think they’re not doing their job unless someone is offended by what they say, which often leads to them saying things designed to offend just so they can get the satisfaction of having offended someone and therefore thinking they must be right.
kimj said,
July 6, 2005 at 1:21 am
Love this