Is It Safe to Go Back to Church?

What is this strange fragrance in the air? Could it be Christian spirit? The president of the Christian Coalition is calling on his co-religionists to make environmental protection a foremost consideration in their election choices. Last February, 86 evangelical leaders signed a statement challenging Bush to do something about global warming. In the U.K., evangelicals are spearheading a campaign to “Make Poverty History.” Just last week, right-winger and self-professed evangelical Dick Armey observed that:

Republicans are talking about things like gay marriage and so forth, and the Democrats are talking about things people care about, like how do I pay my bills?

Could it be that the erstwhile Christian right has found Jesus?

In the wake of the 2004 election, the word was that “values” and “morals” trumped everything else, with morality defined as staunch opposition to gay marriage, abortion and stem cell research. Democrats fell all over themselves declaring that they too had “values,” sort of, and spend their spare moments in prayer. Hillary Clinton, for example, started backpedaling on abortion and came out against gay marriage. Even leading pro-choicers often seemed loath to mention the particular choice they were trying to defend.

They had fallen for the Republicans’ most reliable trick, which, in a word, is distraction. How do you get people to vote against their own economic self-interest -- that is, for tax cuts for the rich, cuts in social programs for everyone else, and endless war? You tell them that the real threats to our well-being are abortionists, stem cell researchers, and matrimonially minded gays.

Tom Frank exposed the trick brilliantly in his 2004 book What’s the Matter with Kansas?, but you could see it coming back in the 70s, when the political right decided to go populist. Populism is a stretch for a party whose economic program is blatantly elitist, anti-worker and anti-average person. But, with a lot of help from the mega-churches, the Republicans pulled off the trick for years. All the guy in the pulpit had to say was “vote pro-life” or “save the family from marauding gays,” and the message was: vote Republican, i.e., vote to feed the fat cats straight from your wallet.

As someone once said, you can’t fool all the people every single moment. It’s hard to get bent out of shape about the fate of a zygote or embryonic stem cell when you can’t afford to take your sick three-year-old to a doctor. It’s demented to blame gays for the strains that arise in your marriage where one partner has to work days and the other one nights because you can’t afford childcare. And of course it’s even harder to believe gay-bashing Republican politicos when so many of their own family members and staffers are contently gay.

This doesn’t mean that morals and values have no place in politics. On the contrary, what both parties need to understand is that economic issues are also moral issues. Poverty is a moral issue; 47 million Americans without health insurance is a moral issue. The same goes for environmental issues: Why fight to save a fertilized egg cell for a life spent gasping for air or fleeing the ever-rising coastlines? If you’re going to be pro-life, you’ve got to be pro-environment and pro-economic justice.

As for the religious part of the Christian right’s values: Show me the passage in the Bible that bans stem cell research. See if you can find the tiniest allusion to abortion (not.) Yes, there’s a bit of homophobia in the Bible, along with endorsements of slavery and a weird obsession with animal sacrifice. Not a word, though, about gay marriage.

Poverty and economic injustice, on the other hand, get hundreds of hits in both testaments. Leftwing evangelist Jim Wallis once took scissors to a Bible and cut out all the references to economic injustice – and what was left looked a lot like confetti. Jesus was a hardliner on the redistribution of wealth: Remember what he told the rich man who wanted to get into heaven? Imagine what he’d have to say about the Bush tax cuts.

So welcome back to the fold, all you recovering rightwing evangelists! We’ll still have plenty to argue about: I’m pro-choice, pro-stem cell research, and against anyone getting married when some people aren’t allowed to. But at least we may have enough common ground on which to hold a meaningful debate.

Comments

[lc2]

Don't want to come off like the perpetual asskisser Barbara, but this essay is brilliant. And long overdue. Don't forget that you can always move here to Massachusetts if you get the urge to marry anyone. It does feel good to a resident of the freak show our Mormon governor likes to portray us as to the rest of the country.

Thanks.

[realpc]

It's true that the bible has nothing to say about abortion or stem cells. It also says very little about homosexuality -- it condemns orgies, which include homosexuality, but there is not much said about monogamous homosexuality.

It's a shame that abortion and gay marriage have become so controversial, when almost everyone would be satisfied with simple compromises. Let gays marry, but use a different word. Let women have elective abortions early in pregnancy, and medically necessary abortions at any stage.

I agree with Barbara that the Christian right is full of contradictions and hypocrisy. On the other hand, she and many other progressives have a deep misunderstanding of Christianity. This prevents them from ever understanding the vast majority of Americans who are religious.

The religious majority cares about traditions and values in general, not about fetuses and stem cells. Abortion, etc., have become symbolic issues.

Barbara does not understand that the progressive left has become associated with a complete lack of traditional values, and she does not understand why a complete lack of traditional values is disturbing to most Americans.

And it is absolutely not true that Jesus was a social activist who wanted to redistribute wealth. This is an extreme misunderstanding of Christianity, only believed by people who never actually read the Christian bible. Jesus was all about devoting your life completely to God. He told the rich man to give everything to the poor because you cannot be rich and also completely devoted to God.

Jesus was not a socialist. He was not working to relieve poverty, to get material stuff for the poor. Progressive social activists are on a very different wavelength than Jesus, with completely different intentions.

You cannot claim religion, Christianity in particiular, as part of your progesssive agenda. You can try to sell it, but religious people won't buy it. You will continue wondering what is wrong with these ignorant people, and they will continue to ignore you.

[Ryan M. Powell]

I would like to read the bible from beginning to end, just to know what it says, but I have a difficult time getting past all the total BS in the first 20 or 30 pages. And judging by the fact that the bible's most well-known stories come from those 20-30 pages, I'm guessing I'm not alone.

http://www.aimlessmovie.com

[Jon]

So now realpc is also a "Christian". It's true that many leftists don't understand that Christ rejected worldly values, but right wing Christians fail to understand that he also rejected "traditional" values. I'm a Christian and a socialist. They're not the same thing, but they're not in competition either. I'm also a defender of Christian tradition, but I understand, unlike right wing "traditionalists", that Christian tradition didn't start 50 years ago.

[realpc]

I never said I'm a Christian. I try to understand various religions.

Jesus was neither a socialist nor an economic libertarian. He had nothing to say about economics, or politics. He was a religious leader, teaching his followers how to enter heaven.

It makes no sense for either left or right wing politicians to claim Jesus as an advocate for their views.

There is a connection between Republicans today and Christianity because Republicans have become the party of traditional values and family. That is because progressives rejected traditional values in the 1960s, and are still stuck with that reputation.

Christianity, or a distorted version of it, is part of the American tradition. And capitalism is another part of the American tradition. Christianity and capitalism have absolutely nothing in common, except that they are both American traditions.

If you oppose either capitalism or Christianity you will be perceived as anti-American. Even though the two things came together entirely by chance.

[lc2]

My understanding is that Jesus's abiding concern was one of equality and respect for humanity regardless of the transgressions of its members. Wouldn't the untouchables of today be embraced by Jesus? And the untouchables of today in the U.S. at least are generally people who fail to contribute fully to the economy, either as workers or consumers. The cause might be mental illness, addiction, disability, or even laziness, but the result is the same -- vastly inferior health care, food, and shelter. So wouldn't this be an affront to Jesus's vision for humanity?

For that matter, wouldn't the the gross overconsumption of America as a people be repugnant to Jesus? I was watching "Laguna Beach" recently on DVD and noticed that the daughter of noted televangelist Robert Schuler drives a Mercedes.

[realpc]

Ic2,

Jesus would have absolutely nothing in common with American consumerism and capitalism. But he also would have nothing in common with socialist activists.
He was not trying to make the poor and the rejected into middle class citizens. He had absolutely no interest in making anyone into middle class consumers.

Socialists want to make everyone equal, so everyone can have a comfortable life. Jesus was interested in the spiritual world, not the material world. Jesus did not look down on certain groups who were considered inferior at that time -- tax collectors, women and children, for example. He thought that people who are inferior and despised in this world would be rewarded in the next. If you are successful and respected now, you already have your reward, and will not get it later.

Jesus was talking about a reversal of roles in the kingdom of heaven, where the least here would be great there and the greatest here would be least there. Who knows where he got that idea or if there is any truth in it. But in any case it has no relevance to today's politics or economics. Jesus was not a socialist and he was not a capitalist.

He was a traditionalist, however, but traditions then were very different from now. Jesus despised hypocrisy -- the Pharisees were the religious leaders yet they enjoyed worldly respect and wealth. Jesus thought worldliness prevented closeness with God.

Anyway -- neither the left or the right of today follows the teaching of Jesus.

Jesus did not have a worldly vision for humanity. And he certainly never made excuses for lazy people. Poverty was accepted then as a fact of life, and Jesus never tried to find causes or solutions for it.

[Arwen]

I see the point realpc is making - Christ certainly did not suggest that the Romans should start a universal health care scheme. Eg; Render under Ceasar; in the consider the lilies chapters he suggests a focus away from the material; in the same passage he's concerned with people not ostentatiously giving (whereas most charities I know would care less if you were ostentatious about your donation); the suggestion that there will "always be poor among you".

Christ was not a materialist. Or an economist.

On the other hand, the spiritual duty to the poor and struggling is continuously referenced. It was an obvious focus; and yes, though the point was because our eyes should be on our spiritual not material well-being, the caretaking of fellow humanity comes out of that belief. Far more than a lot of the current political action getting truck in the media being done in Christianity's name.

After all, Christ also didn't say boo about the *LEGALITY* of abortions or wife-coveting or any other thinks. If giving to the poor is not a matter of governance but of spiritual understanding, then voting "Christian values" makes no sense generally.

Also, it seems to me that the whole kit and kaboodle of Messiah-hood was predicated on a religious-political construction of Christ. Still shows up in modern Christianity - King of Kings and Lord of Lords and all that, and is at least deeply entrenched in the Christian Zionist world view which certainly suggests Christ will be/should be the ruler of all in a political sense. (We also have limited success with the seperation of church and state.)

Therefore, I don't think it's that inappropriate to question system of governance created by Christians ostensibily on spiritual values in terms of the spiritual values as proferred by the leader of that group. Although Christ wasn't aiming for governmental role, a lot of "Christians" are in those roles, and claim to their bases to do what they do in Christ's name. I don't think it's at all irrelevant to question whether Christ would have valued compassion to the impoverished before opposition to stem cell research; (or perhaps both/and).

[lc2]

OK, I've been thinking about this a lot lately since I live in a predominantly Christian country (the U.S.). I am no biblical scholar, but neither are most of the churchgoing people I've come across. Given that this is the case, why do so many of them (from liberal Congregationalists to fundamentalists) _think_ they're doing God's work/enacting Jesus's vision when they care for the poor? Are they all misinterpreting the bible? And at a certain point, does it really matter what the bible says if the vast majority of Christians _think_ that ministering to the poor is important, and that there is a concensus that homelessness, etc. is abhorrent in the midst of material excess?

[Ryan M. Powell]

Since our American History textbooks (and the media) can't even portray an accurate account of 20th-century history, I think it's pretty arrogant for anyone on this planet to make believe they know, with any certainty, even the first thing about ANYONE who lived 2,000 years ago.

http://www.aimlessmovie.com

[realpc]

Ryan M. Powell,

No one claims to know anything certain about Jesus. But we can say what is in the bible. Even though the bible has been edited to fit various political causes, some things about it are obvious. It is obvious to anyone who actually reads it that Jesus' central concerns were all spiritual, not economic.

lc2,

Yes, caring for the poor is commanded by God in the Old and New Testaments. That's one reason churches are often involved in charity, and is one reason Christians are supposed to tithe.
So yes, the Democrats have a point when they criticize Christian Republicans who don't seem to give a hoot about the poor. However, I think most Christians of either party do care about the poor -- they just have different theories about how to help them. Republicans tend to think capitalism is the best cure for poverty, while Democrats tend to prefer government programs.

But I still think it's going too far when certain Christian churches focus intently on curing poverty. It is one God's commandments (among many others) to care for the poor. But God (in the bible) never expected anyone to cure poverty, since it was consdered inevitable at that time. Misfortune and sickness are part of life, so a small percent will suffer and need help.

[Sharon]

realpc, I would direct you to the Old Testament, which is chock full of references to social justice, caring for the poor, the widows, the orphans, etc. See, for example, the book of Amos. I can find others, too, if you like.

It's fascinating to me that the religious right is so enamoured of the O.T. when it supports their worldview--stoning gays, for example--and so ignorant of it when it doesn't. The OT prophets tell us that our nation will be judged by how it treats the weak and powerless, not how it treats the strong and wealthy.

[Ryan M. Powell]

realpc,

The bible is a book. It was written by people who either couldn't tell the difference between reality and fantasy or didn't intend for their stories to be taken literally.

http://www.aimlessmovie.com

[realpc]

Sharon,

I just said "caring for the poor is commanded by God in the Old and New Testaments."

So why are you directing me to it?

Ryan M. Powell,

Talking about what Jesus said or did not say is not taking the bible literally.

Jesus did not want to help the poor become middle class. He wanted all his followers to be poor.

[lc2]

I am extremely intrigued by this last point and I am putting a lot of stock, perhaps naively, in realpc's comments because I am woefully uninformed about the bible.

Why did Jesus want all his followers to be poor, and what does this mean for his modern day followers? How can this be an ostensibly faithful country and so materially gluttonous at the same time? Has virtually the entire Christian faith (certainly its mainstream) in America, with its minivans, SUV's, Carnival cruises and Sunday clothes from the mall, really strayed that far from Jesus's teachings?

In Jesus terms, does this mean that the people at the church soup kitchen where I have helped out from time to time are closer to God than the volunteers? Most of the guests are homeless, addicted, disabled, or a combination of those things -- and hungry. You sure hear a lot of them singing God's praises amongst themselves. I also heard a presumably homeless person there once denounce women who have abortions in the strongest imaginable terms, to the point of making even the church volunteers uncomfortable.

Finally, my gut reaction is that it's hard to imagine Jesus was indifferent to worldly suffering. Wasn't he supposed to be some kind of healer, recognizing the misery of physical not just spiritual ailments? Wouldn't it then follow that he would want everyone to have access to baseline health care in the modern world -- call it "middle class" if you will --? It just seems inconceivable that Jesus wouldn't recognize that once society has reached a point at which it can meet the needs for food, clothing, and shelter of all its citizens, we still have cold, hungry, and/or homeless people among us.

[The Eternal Squire]

Ic2,
It seems to me that realpc is probably remembering the Liberation Theology debate that happened in Latin American countries during the late 70's, early 80's. A group of Western Hemisphere bishops jointly wrote a statement saying that The Rabbi had a "preferential option for the poor". This was roundly rejected by the Vatican, as the Vatican saw the various liberation theologists as becoming too involved in the temporal politics of the countries they were trying to showcase.

I think a lot of people confuse the intentions of The Rabbi. Having been both raised Jewish and converted to Protestant Christianity, and having had an ex-spouse who was studying to be a minister, gives me a perspective from which I can my limited understanding it seems that the mission of The Rabbi was simply to announce that He was the Son of God and that people were to believe in Him. No more, no less. Every statement recorded from Him only serves to underscore the point, anything else is a side-effect of that message. He was not out to send the rich to Hell... he simply made statements to some rich people that thier wealth was blinding them to the realities of the kingdom beyond, and that the best way to be able to see was simply to let go of the burden of wealth. Possessing wealth carries expectations of social standing that gets in the way of understanding the message He was trying to convey.

The Eternal Squire

[The Eternal Squire]

Canadian,

Thank you so much for your order. What do you think the pin should look like?

Maybe an outward palm with the middle digit lowered rather than raised, and the phrase "UP is YOURS!" carved in the middle??

The Eternal Squire

[Jacqueline]

Hey Eternal Squire!

How can I contact you to buy a pin? I would like to know how much you charge and how I can order one. I like that idea of the pin saying " UP Yours" - very catchy. Kinda like my slogan on my business cards for the insurance:
"Covering Your A$$ets".
Catchy phrases really do get people's attention. If people see a pin that says "UP Yours" they will ask about it - and that is an excellent opportunity to educate them on joining UP - and what we are trying to accomplish.

[Jacqueline]

This is very interesting. People debating on whose responsibility it is to ensure a basic minimum ability to live for the poor when none of us, to the best of my knowledge, are aristocrats - and may be in desperate need of social support themselves someday. Many are poor because there simply isn't enough jobs to go around for everybody able to work who needs a job. Is it fair that they should starve, freeze and be homeless or without adequate medical and dental care?

As for the biblical references to who is responsible - I do not recall seeing one passage that absolves the government of that responsibility in doing it's part.

Furthermore, it seems to me that it really is in the whole of society's interest to address poverty because that is an overall quality of life issue that affects all.

[realpc]

"Why did Jesus want all his followers to be poor, and what does this mean for his modern day followers?"

Ic2,

It means that most Americans who call themselves Christian are not following the teachings of Jesus.
What we call Christianity now is really a modern religion, very different from the original.

The followers of Jesus were sort of like the monks and nuns of today, who retreat from the world and live simply.

Judaism is not at all opposed to worldly success and enjoyment of life, and it does not make promises about heaven. Modern American Christianity is sort of a hybrid of several different religions.

And yes Jesus was a healer. Does that mean he would have advocated universal health care if he were here now? We don't know. I sort of doubt he would have been a fan of modern science, or a political progessive.

[Jessica]

Sing it, Sista!

[Ryan M. Powell]

realpc,

The biblical accounts of Jesus's life were written by people who were not there to witness his life (supposing he actually existed). These stories were passed along orally, becoming an entirely new story each time a new person told the story, until finally someone wrote down the version that made it to their own ears.

The bible is not a remotely accurate or reliable account of history. It is a collection of stories, most of which clearly never happened. The people who compiled the book omitted points of view that did not reflect their own beliefs, and they rewrote stories they didn't like.

The bible is a novel. At best, parts of it are BASED ON actual events. Even if everything it says about Jesus is true and accurate, the rest of the book strips all credibility from whoever wrote the stories about him.

Time to get a new bullshit detector.

http://www.aimlessmovie.com

[realpc]

I am NOT saying anything in the bible is true. I am NOT expressing any opinion about the truth of the bible. I am just saying what Jesus said ACCORDING TO the bible. OK? I am NOT someone who believes in the bible or follows it. I am NOT a Chrisitan.
Got that? Or do I have to say it 95 more times?

[The Eternal Squire]

Jacqueline, Canadian:

I have a family to think about and I don't want myself or them to be stalked.

I am currently working on my overall design process: Line art to CNC commands to mold carving to casting to finishing.

When I am ready I will announce on this blog which web site to go to.

I have the potential for my own storefront but right now it has nothing to sell yet.

I would like to make this pin available wholesale only to UP chapter heads to distribute to new or existing members.

This way, I have guaranteed business from serious participants only.

Lapel or tie-tack size out of .925 silver should cost $15 each in minimum quantities of 10, $10 each in minimum quantities of 50.

Chapter head should mark up and send the different to UP for fundraising.

Hopefully this sounds like Fair Trade. Your thoughts?

The Eternal Squire

[lc2]

So then poor people who are poor by virtue of disability, etc. but who have not consciously rejected materialism, are not as high on God's list?

Weren't Jesus's followers the untouchables of his day, not people who had consciously rejected worldly goods?

It's an interesting question to me because I think many people experience temporary impoverishment, get by with less than they thought they needed, then consciously reject material excesses to a certain extent. They may not have started out craving an ascetic life but find that being unburdened of wealth can be liberating, perhaps spiritually if you look at it that way. Or they get money and give away all but what they need to not be overly worried about finances.