07.25.05
Posted in christ-haunted life at 8:28 am by
NOTE: For a little background on this post, read volume 1 of the christ-haunted life series.
My first real memories of Church are come from a Sunday School sing-a-long time that I was a part of in Hawarden, Iowa. Hawarden (pronounced Hay-warden) Christian Reformed Church was my dad’s first church. From the stories I’ve heard, it probably wasn’t the easiest way to start off in the ministry. Regardless of my dad’s trials as the pastor of this church, I loved the Sunday School sing-a-long. At age 4, pretty much everything can be made into a game, so, any songs that included actions were my kind of thing.
Despite what was probably a challenging Church for my parents, they’ve come away with a few ‘forever friends’ from that experience. I’m continually amazed by these people–after years apart this couple and my parents seem to just jump back into their friendship. Amazing.
This couple, and to protect their anonymity we’ll call them Ron and Ruth, adopted my brother and I as their own in a manner of speaking. Now, of course, we’re not REALLY their kids, and they don’t treat us like we are, but they take a genuine interest in our lives–my brother and I. Even after 20 years apart Ron and Ruth, are interested in me and when Jen and I have a chance to see them, they’re quite happy to sit down and pursue us in conversation. I’m amazed by their love, it seems to have no bounds.
Ron and Ruth formed a special attachment to my brother and I, I think. You see, they played baby sitter when my parents couldn’t afford one (which in Hawarden was pretty much all the time.) They took care of my brother and I on a semi-regular basis. If there’s anyone–aside from my parents–who Jen and I would aspire to end up like as a couple, I’d have to cast my vote for Ron and Ruth. They’re great role models.
Honestly, I think of Ron and Ruth relatively frequently. They’re wonderful people. As I grew up in ‘conservative’ northwest Iowa, Ron and Ruth probably weren’t the outliars. They probably were one of a long line of folks who would’ve made great role-models. And, though I can’t say for sure, they’re probably pretty politically conservative.
I tell you that story to explain this: living in a conservative place, it’s difficult to find role-models with whom you share much perspective. Here’s a big confession: I’m not nearly as sure about being ’socially liberal’ as I sometimes like to portray myself. I think a lot of that lies in the fact that there aren’t really any mature folks that I know well that espouse well the gracious manifestation of Jesus Christ from a liberal slant. In short, pretty much everybody I know is conservative. The liberals–well, while many are laudable and downright wise themselves–mature folks, role-models, etc. are almost never ‘liberal.’
Now, don’t get me wrong. I’m actually quite fond of most conservatives. Maybe that’s the problem. If I’m honest, I can’t make them worse than they really are–which really isn’t bad at all. Some are even very mature, far more mature than I. I’ll be damned if they’re not downright appealing.
Logically, I know that this shouldn’t matter, right? Just because a religio-political viewpoint isn’t particularly popular in a geographic region doesn’t make that viewpoint wrong, right? Yes. I’m right, but that doesn’t do much to console me when there are few heroes of the faith to look up to.
You know, the truth is I do use these folks as a role-model. I’m not haughty enough (at least not yet) to think that I can’t learn from them. It’s just difficult to model one’s faith after folks whose politics you think are ‘all washed up.’ Now, I’m not saying that there aren’t ANY progressive Christian rolemodels. Indubitably, there are. I just don’t know them yet, and that frustrates me from time to time.
I think the thing that draws me so to these ‘conservativish’ role models in the faith is that their dialogue isn’t soaked in conservative rhetoric. Their less vitriolic posture is appealing. I know the argument: “They’re in the majority they needn’t be vitriolic.” It’s true, these folks have the luxury of not beligerently pursuing their ideals–because their ideals are already a reality with in the Christian Church at large.
Progressive Christians–and there’s even alliances of them now–sometimes are wooed into participating (in my humble opinion) in the ’status quo dialectic.’ That is, these folks work to do exactly what conservative Christians have done. They seek to toss the table cloth of biblical liberalism over the table of Christianity. (Much like conservative christians have already done with conservatism.) And, once the tablecloth is cast, it sort of becomes a part of the table itself.
I’m not sure that casting a progressive cloth over Christianity is the method by which to pursue justice and truth. I think that first, liberal Christians and conservative Christians alike need to start bringing confession to the table and admitting–like I’ve tried in this post–that they’re humans, that they’re wrong sometimes, that they’re not perfect, and that they don’t have all the answers.
The goal of a tablecloth is to completely cover a table. Regardless of whether you’re a blue stater, a red stater, or blue, or red, (or some other shade of purple), I don’t think that controlling the viewpoint of the church is a noble goal for any one group to have. But, that seems to be what we try to do. I think, perhaps, that choosing to value a spectrum or spectra of political values is a more profitable value for church folk to pursue.
I hope, one day, to find myself a liberal role-model or two. Preferably a couple that lives out how to grow in the grace of Christ daily. A few folks who, out of their wisdom, don’t feel the need to sound shrill because it’s okay if some folks to disagree. Of course, this would require a radical transformation. Not a transformation, though, of the Church’s political landscape, or of any particular individuals’ views. It would require a transformation of the very way we interact with one another. It would require a mutual acceptance, a common concern for one another.
One day though, perhaps I won’t see it, perhaps I will–the Kingdom will reflect this mutual respect on the whole.
…thy kingdom come.
Permalink
Trackback URL »
http://www.badchristian.com/2005/07/25/a_christ_haunted_life_vol_2/trackback/
Posted in christ-haunted life at 8:28 am by
NOTE: For a little background on this post, read volume 1 of the christ-haunted life series.
My first real memories of Church are come from a Sunday School sing-a-long time that I was a part of in Hawarden, Iowa. Hawarden (pronounced Hay-warden) Christian Reformed Church was my dad’s first church. From the stories I’ve heard, it probably wasn’t the easiest way to start off in the ministry. Regardless of my dad’s trials as the pastor of this church, I loved the Sunday School sing-a-long. At age 4, pretty much everything can be made into a game, so, any songs that included actions were my kind of thing.
Despite what was probably a challenging Church for my parents, they’ve come away with a few ‘forever friends’ from that experience. I’m continually amazed by these people–after years apart this couple and my parents seem to just jump back into their friendship. Amazing.
This couple, and to protect their anonymity we’ll call them Ron and Ruth, adopted my brother and I as their own in a manner of speaking. Now, of course, we’re not REALLY their kids, and they don’t treat us like we are, but they take a genuine interest in our lives–my brother and I. Even after 20 years apart Ron and Ruth, are interested in me and when Jen and I have a chance to see them, they’re quite happy to sit down and pursue us in conversation. I’m amazed by their love, it seems to have no bounds.
Ron and Ruth formed a special attachment to my brother and I, I think. You see, they played baby sitter when my parents couldn’t afford one (which in Hawarden was pretty much all the time.) They took care of my brother and I on a semi-regular basis. If there’s anyone–aside from my parents–who Jen and I would aspire to end up like as a couple, I’d have to cast my vote for Ron and Ruth. They’re great role models.
Honestly, I think of Ron and Ruth relatively frequently. They’re wonderful people. As I grew up in ‘conservative’ northwest Iowa, Ron and Ruth probably weren’t the outliars. They probably were one of a long line of folks who would’ve made great role-models. And, though I can’t say for sure, they’re probably pretty politically conservative.
I tell you that story to explain this: living in a conservative place, it’s difficult to find role-models with whom you share much perspective. Here’s a big confession: I’m not nearly as sure about being ’socially liberal’ as I sometimes like to portray myself. I think a lot of that lies in the fact that there aren’t really any mature folks that I know well that espouse well the gracious manifestation of Jesus Christ from a liberal slant. In short, pretty much everybody I know is conservative. The liberals–well, while many are laudable and downright wise themselves–mature folks, role-models, etc. are almost never ‘liberal.’
Now, don’t get me wrong. I’m actually quite fond of most conservatives. Maybe that’s the problem. If I’m honest, I can’t make them worse than they really are–which really isn’t bad at all. Some are even very mature, far more mature than I. I’ll be damned if they’re not downright appealing.
Logically, I know that this shouldn’t matter, right? Just because a religio-political viewpoint isn’t particularly popular in a geographic region doesn’t make that viewpoint wrong, right? Yes. I’m right, but that doesn’t do much to console me when there are few heroes of the faith to look up to.
You know, the truth is I do use these folks as a role-model. I’m not haughty enough (at least not yet) to think that I can’t learn from them. It’s just difficult to model one’s faith after folks whose politics you think are ‘all washed up.’ Now, I’m not saying that there aren’t ANY progressive Christian rolemodels. Indubitably, there are. I just don’t know them yet, and that frustrates me from time to time.
I think the thing that draws me so to these ‘conservativish’ role models in the faith is that their dialogue isn’t soaked in conservative rhetoric. Their less vitriolic posture is appealing. I know the argument: “They’re in the majority they needn’t be vitriolic.” It’s true, these folks have the luxury of not beligerently pursuing their ideals–because their ideals are already a reality with in the Christian Church at large.
Progressive Christians–and there’s even alliances of them now–sometimes are wooed into participating (in my humble opinion) in the ’status quo dialectic.’ That is, these folks work to do exactly what conservative Christians have done. They seek to toss the table cloth of biblical liberalism over the table of Christianity. (Much like conservative christians have already done with conservatism.) And, once the tablecloth is cast, it sort of becomes a part of the table itself.
I’m not sure that casting a progressive cloth over Christianity is the method by which to pursue justice and truth. I think that first, liberal Christians and conservative Christians alike need to start bringing confession to the table and admitting–like I’ve tried in this post–that they’re humans, that they’re wrong sometimes, that they’re not perfect, and that they don’t have all the answers.
The goal of a tablecloth is to completely cover a table. Regardless of whether you’re a blue stater, a red stater, or blue, or red, (or some other shade of purple), I don’t think that controlling the viewpoint of the church is a noble goal for any one group to have. But, that seems to be what we try to do. I think, perhaps, that choosing to value a spectrum or spectra of political values is a more profitable value for church folk to pursue.
I hope, one day, to find myself a liberal role-model or two. Preferably a couple that lives out how to grow in the grace of Christ daily. A few folks who, out of their wisdom, don’t feel the need to sound shrill because it’s okay if some folks to disagree. Of course, this would require a radical transformation. Not a transformation, though, of the Church’s political landscape, or of any particular individuals’ views. It would require a transformation of the very way we interact with one another. It would require a mutual acceptance, a common concern for one another.
One day though, perhaps I won’t see it, perhaps I will–the Kingdom will reflect this mutual respect on the whole.
…thy kingdom come.
Permalink
Trackback URL »
http://www.badchristian.com/2005/07/25/a_christ_haunted_life_vol_2/trackback/
Public Theologian said,
July 25, 2005 at 11:04 am
A lot of what you say here resonates with me. I,too, grew up a pastor’s child among some very fine conservative Christian people. However to many of those folks my faith and politcs are now a great disappointment.
I disagree with your comparison between what Christian progressives are doing now in response to what fundamentalists have been doing for a quarter century. Simply because the methods may be the same does not mean that there is moral equivalence. The content of what we stand for surely is not the same as what the fundamentalists are advocating. Isn’t it more reasonable to judge on the basis of the issues and actions of the respective groups, rather than simply dismissing any group that uses the same political methods or works within society’s given political framework?
Having documented so eleoquently on your blog the abuses of fundamentalism, why would you be critical of any attempt to organize political action to stop those abuses from harming even more people, particularly given the exponential increase of their power in the last two decades? Can we sit idly by and treat this as a matter of relative indifference and feel that after having blogged about the abuses that we have discharged our ethical duty to our neighbor and let the matter go at that? Can we really remain “above it all” as observers or does the gospel demand that we do more? Can the American Christian act as if the freedoms to speak, assemble, organize and vote are not part of our stewardship, rights that must be as properly husbanded and deployed on behalf of the marginalized as vigorously as if God had dropped a billion dollars into each Christian’s lap?
Brandon said,
July 25, 2005 at 11:18 am
I don’t think that there is moral equivalance…what I’m arguing is that the method IS a big part of the problem.
That critique of the method is a critique of that harm that fundamentalism has imposed on so many. However, if progressive Christians are to adopt the same methods, arent’ we similarly afflicted (or afflicting?) I think so.
I think that there’s also a lot of danger in equating conservatism and fundamentalism. The two are hardly one and the same. Listen, all I’m saying is that as progressive Christians we need to be concerned about the method by which we seek to transform the faith.
The Christian Alliance for Progress–from what I’ve seen and understand–proclaims a similar negatively framed rhetorical challenge against conservative Christians as conservative Christians have historically done to liberals. I can’t imagine that this dialectic is particularly helpful.
It’s not that I disagree with the politics of such an organization, it’s that I don’t agree with the method by which it proclaims its views. It doesn’t mean that the views are wrong, not in the least.
I think that the abuses of this hurtful dialectic that is oft devoid of mutual respect is far more harmful than any fundamentalist espousal of absolute truth could ever be.
As long as we (progressive Christians) can’t accurately, respectfully, and fairly model a dialogue of faithful discussion, they’re not doing much at all to REALLY pursue truthful ends.
Public Theologian said,
July 25, 2005 at 1:20 pm
But what you are advocating is exactly what progressives have been doing for the last thirty years. And while we have been modeling reasonable dialogue, the fundamentalists have been buying satellites, destroying denominations like the Southern Baptist Convention, and colonizing the Republican Party. More of the same behavior from progressives is simply not helpful.
These people mean business. They cannot be dismissed as a fringe movement, for they control the government, as even longtime conservative Republicans like Senator John Danforth have acknowledged.
Brandon said,
July 25, 2005 at 7:15 pm
I’m glad we’re having this debate, PT. I think it’s an important debate for progressives to have within our ranks.
I understand where you’re coming from, I think. As you know I’m a progressive myself. I think, though, where we’d differ is in our understanding of what progressives have done for the past thirty years.
I don’t think progressives have done enough in the past thirty years–and certainly not enough in the last 10 or so–of asserting that their viewpoints are essentially Christian. It’s a more recent progressive rhetorical move to portray themselves as Christian. More often progressive politicians are interested in being ‘just Christian enough’ when it comes to election season, rather than just ‘Christian.’
I’m not advocating an all out abandonment of expressing personal belief when it comes to political/religious ideology. I’m just saying that framing such a debate in the typical ‘Jesus would be a _______ (insert your party here)’ dialectic isn’t particularly fruitful.
I’m not saying that progressives should keep their traps shut altogether. I just think that they’d be better off to do what they haven’t done–clearly communicate their political beliefs in the context of their faiths (Jewish, Christian, Muslim, or whatever).
Rather–and I’m picking on the Christian Alliance for Progress too much here, but since you’re farmiliar–the CAFP proclaims (from just a few statements on their main page that they’re ‘reclaiming Christianity’, that ‘I joined this movement for compassion and justice.’
Framing the debate in such a manner simply infers that conservatives AREN’T interested in compassion and justice. And, if you ‘reclaim Christianity’ where does that leave thinking ‘right leaning’ Christians? The same place we’re so sick of being?
I’m not saying either that we should let Falwell have his way. Or that Mohler should just be ignored. Or even that Dr. Dobson should be allowed free reign of his subjects.
I just can’t believe that stooping–and I don’t believe that we have stooped this far yet, but we’re heading that direction–to Rove-esque rhetorical mudslinging is in any way ‘God-glorifying.’ Nor can I believe that THIS is the path to the empowerment of progressives.
I resonate deeply, though, with the Christian Alliance for Progress. I care about the issues they care about. Indeed, I am a progressive, through and through. But, their message seems to be one of ‘conquer’ rather than a message of ‘peace.’