After college me and my generation have been in the midst of a backlash on how we (fundamentalist Baptists) were raised and how politics were approached. Although, I have become more politically aware and share some of the frustrations with my fellow deprogrammed, Southern Baptist, survivors. I have had a hard time expressing or explaining why I still share and stand beside the "evil fundamentalists" in the support of conservatism. Why do I and other conservatives get accused of being less compassionate than liberals? Why do they appear to be more generous? Although, I disagree with these distinctions, it is hard to reverse that reputation. Today, I read an article by Michael Medved, that seemed to sum up my world view and my assertion that conservatism is still a better choice than the American brand of liberalism. Below, is the link.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/column.aspx?UrlTitle=the_core_of_conservatism_distinctions_and_consequences&ns=MichaelMedved&dt=03/14/2007&page=1
What do y'all think?
Ben
9 comments:
Obviously, from my initial post I am also very conservative with the use of the spell checker.
and pronoun usage.
Good read. I'm a big fan of Medved with the exception of his strong belief in Big Foot, but that's another story for another day. Where I do differ, and I think there is a link, I never felt the need or benefit to be deprogrammed as a born and bred Southern Baptist or political conservative. While there is much, at times very much, to be dissatisfied and even angry with, there is far more good being both of these than bad.
I know many on this post are not now members of a church affiliated with the SBC while I am on staff at one. While even the church I serve has openly questioned what is happening to the money given to the Cooperative Program and would it be better spent elsewhere, I hope we stay put. While transformation is greatly needed I wanted to offer some things that the SBC does well; in my opinion, better than other denominations.
Evangelism: While some are put off by the often confrontational approach, there is little doubt as to the purity of the doctrine of soteriology (salvation) or the necessity, in theory if not in practice, of it among SB members.
Missions: At least in emphasis, missions are a priority. Execution is another matter altogether, but among denominations, they are at the top in sending long and short term teams around the world with the Gospel.
Community Ministry: Our Association just opened a Crisis Pregnancy Center and has steady ministry to Prisons and homeless shelters.
Disaster Relief: Teams are still going to New Orleans and Mississippi, while we just had men return from South Georgia. The SBC is second only to the Salvation Army, and the Red Cross when it comes to ministering to those who suffer loss.
Don't get me wrong, I am not an SBC propogandist, but the things I listed above are the church mobilized. While change needs to occur, I don't feel the need to be deprogrammed.
Perhaps, the strongest card I will play is the one of church autonomy which allows for a diversity of churches under the SBC umbrella. While the doctrine remains consistent, the style and approaches and emphases within each member church will vary. I'm sure this will stir a few up, so I'll stop here and wait for the beating to begin.
I agree it was an interesting read....when I see things like this I understand why Christ never got involved with or aligned himself with any political group....there are as many things that I agree with as things I disagree with in this article...and I may have time to get into some of those later, but I wanted to address what Jebo posted. Many of us on the blog grew up together....went to the same church.....and like Jebo said, many no longer go to SBC churches. I will admit that my disdain for the SBC has many times been over emotional and reckless. Jebo, you're right....there are many many things that the SBC does that are true examples of Calvary like love and we should not discount those....My father worked for NAMB for many years and I know they do some great things....I think the frustration for me is that these are not the things that seem to be focused on the most in the Convention....Gay marriage, drinking, politics, abortion...these are the things that I always hear about....I said it in a post last week and I think it holds true for the SBC....they are known much more for what they are against than what they are for. My family is eat up with SBC'ers...I am the only one, at this point who is a member of a non SBC church.....and you would have thought I'd become an atheist...my issue many times is the feeling of "if it ain't Baptist, it ain't right".....I guess what I need to realize is that is the squeaky wheel....and I shouldn't judge the denomination on that alone....that said, I do think I have had to be somewhat deprogrammed....but those are my own issues and probably unfair of me to heap at the feet of the SBC.
Well, said. I do think more folks know the SBC as the stick in the mud, anti-everything crowd. There's far too much great in Christ to be found always harping on how evil the world is, and sadly, that is what many of our churches major on.
I've been taking heat for hosting our first ever community-wide Egg Hunt the day before Easter. The purpose of course is to connect them to worship the next day, but you would think we are promoting idol worship through eggs and candy. Fortunately, my leadership supports me, but there are some people I respect who need find more do's on their list than don't's.
Rather than harp against the darkness, be the light, shining the Light, resulting in transformation.
After reading this this morning, I thought, wow, this has the potential of being the best discussion yet on the PRF. For my ADD mind, it is hard to get my arms around it because there is so much that needs to be addressed.
Ben, congratulations on a great post. I have a couple questions about the post and a comment or two and then I'll look at the article.
1. What is meant by "deprogrammed". If you meant in a literal sense, I don't think we were programmed. Certainly we were indoctrinated with a worldview but whether realized or not, (I like to think my parents realized it) it set up a strong basis for a Biblical worldview. I think the "deprogramming" comes into play when we start to think critically (hopefully expected) and try to weed through the crap (much of it) and the good (much of it) and reconcile our own worldviews with this in mind. I think it is safe to say we can all appreciate the sound Bible teaching which we were taught. To unravel that from a politic that WAS presented as congruous that may NOT be wholly congruous with an authentic Biblical worldview or maybe even secondary/tertiary doctrinal errors is the task. That is how I define deprogramming in this context. In short, I approach the task with the understanding that it was a good intention and, on the whole, correct.
2. I too "stand beside the "evil fundamentalists" in the support of conservatism". I think you're a little out of bounds with the "evil" part.
3. I heard once that conservatives (and I mean that term here in a strict theological sense) are suspicious that moderates don't really affirm inerrancy. The moderates are suspicious that the conservatives are really self-serving and don't care about people. I think that is pretty universal leading to the conclusion, right or not, that conservatives are less compassionate. Compassion, in a broad sense, is often misappropriated on the left, but as a general rule, more consonant with the left. Fair or not. It is not only hard to reverse that reputation, it is impossible. Simply put, there are too many on the right who validate the stereotype with a genuine lack of compassion.
But I will say, and this is very important, to be conservative and to lack compassion don't have to go hand in hand. As you say, that is the stigma, and as I say, it always will be, but it doesn't mean we must be given to one side or the other.
Finally, your assertion is correct in my mind. Conservatism is a better choice. But not because of how our politics are shaped. This is the beef I think guys like me have with the religious right. That our politics and our self-serving motivations, though not as a rule bad, should not shape our theology and worldview. Rather our theology and worldview should shape our politics and our self-serving beliefs should be measured against the truth of the Bible, before we should espouse those beliefs.
What does this mean in reality? It means that a group that markets themselves as Christian or para-church should not have as their guiding principles, politics that have neutral value with regard to Christianity. Abortion is not one of these, and it is why as long as pro-choice is the platform of the liberal, I will never be a liberal. But free trade, defense spending, pro-business, anti-Hillary, etc issues which have either a negligible Christian component or maybe even a negative, should not be at the forefront of an American Christian's agenda. Other topics that do have a value, freedom of religion, for example, get so twisted that they're unrecognizable. To support a strict freedom of religion platform may be a great thing, but when we distort that into prayer in schools, fighting Disney and Lowe's because their cartoons somehow offend or they're selling Holiday trees instead of Christmas trees...these are silly issues that are not worthy of the cause of Christ. In fact, one could, and I would, make the argument that these issues as presented by the fundamentalists, are counter-productive and have led to an overall loss of credibility.
As to the article ...
I don't agree with his contradictions. They don't seem to be so. What is more pervasive is the contradiction that as people of faith and historically, supporters of the oppressed, we're now mostly, fervently in favor of the status quo and business as usual. I say historically, but it should be directly said that as people of faith, we are CALLED to right wrongs, to help those who can't help themselves. Whether that should be voluntary (my view) or imposed by the government through forced redistribution of wealth is gray.
I will say you can not be pissed off about welfare and make an(perhaps valid) argument that it is government-sanctioned theft...forcing people to give to the poor. Then turn around and support that a Christian worldview be taught in our schools. THAT is a contradiction and illustrates the right's hypocrisy. God calls us to support the downtrodden but we can't sanction that legally and then say, God calls us to impact the culture and we can do that by law (force) through public education...that doesn't fly with me.
A good summary statement: "Above all, conservatives feel impelled to make clear distinctions between right and wrong."
Sign me up on that one. I love it. Only one problem, what is the basis for making that call? Is it your Christian ethic (something Christ would champion) or is it free enterprise (a Boortz-ian type approach with a neutral or negligible or negative Christian value)?
"we try to draw lines between the beneficial and the dysfunctional, between productive and destructive." I can agree to this too. However, the gospel is not always efficient, not always functional. It is sometimes thrifty, sometimes extravagant, and sometimes destructive to a society or an economy. Surely there are better ways to benefit the economy, and maybe society, than giving resources to those who are poor allocators of resources. And yet, that is the charge to churchmen. Not exclusively, as we should be good stewards of everything entrusted to us. But being a good steward for whom? Not the American economy but for the Lord. And there are times when those will be at odds.
On the whole, I think he has some very good points. And obviously a thinker trying to reconcile faith and politics and distinctives, which I can appreciate.
Yet the constituency is sometimes not thinking, not reconciling, and distinctively mean-spirited. Why then are we to believe, regarding the American political spectrum, that there is a correct position and an incorrect, a good and a bad? While an easier way to go through life, simply align yourself with a party and do what they do, we must choose the narrow way. That way calls us to be agents of God on earth and doesn't fit any mold that exists. Therefore, we can not simplify everything to cause and effect as he suggests we must do. We can't call something neutral bad and something our faith indicates is bad, good. Medved calls us to see a black and white, continue to make the tough call on right and wrong, and to portray cause and effect thinking as distinctly conservative.
Unfortunately, the world is simply not that simple.
For Jeebs: No, I think that was well said.
I have a theory that the "conservative resurgence" led the convention towards the right path, affirming inerrancy. But the path was somehow lost with all the distractions. In a well-intentioned effort to impact culture, the SBC had competing (also well-intentioned) voices calling for separation from culture. The result was a catastrophe. Disconnected, overly-political, and now only mostly Biblically inclined, the SBC has embraced the cult of personality found in society, yet are thought to be out of touch WITH society. In short, the worst of both worlds.
Sensing that they're thought to be out of touch, there's also this weird contradiction where the SBC embraces anyone non-SBC who is in the public eye and has something - anything - about them that lines up with their values. "Oh, he's famous and he hates gays too! (thunderous applause)" Meanwhile, anyone within the SBC family who does not exercise total conformity gets lambasted. (This, a desperate attempt to self-preserve)
Thankfully, missions and evangelism remain strong and truly stand as a model to churches everywhere. I have seen other signs, as you mention, of churchmen putting their faith to action in service to the community in which they're called. I have seen and heard creative voices call for further reflection and retooling. That is comforting and hopeful.
Practically speaking however, I think the power core in place now will have to wane away if the chokehold of fear and strict conformity is to be removed.
And to your autonomy argument. A great concept, but let's be real for a moment. "...which allows for a diversity of churches under the SBC umbrella." While true in theory, any church under the SBC umbrella that deviates from company lines will not be given a voice. You may have a variance as you say, but if you vary too much, you'll be targeted. And on the other side of the coin, autonomy presents another problem. No denominational accountability (assuming you're one of the old guard who makes the rules) and no accountability within the church (as the dominant CEO/Pastor leadership model will attest) you have a serious crisis in leadership structure.
Now all that was harsh, and I need to get real. I can imagine every denomination has things like this at play. The mega-church has fed the notion that you can have a totally sufficient church without a denomination and we're now in an era that people call, "post-denominational". So it ain't just SBC who has to come to terms with decline, it's everybody. And I'm not sure if that is good or bad for the Kingdom.
Sorry, it took so long for me to explain myself. It is almost impossible for me to respond at work.
I want to apologize for some of my strong words pointed at the SBC. "Evil Fundamentalists" and "de programmed" were really satirical and really an indictment to my poor mistreated and abused generation. But since I am a poor writer no one saw the wink, wink. I really wrote those characterizations to point out how my generation have over reacted and painted everything that SBC and mainline Christians stand for and supported as evil. Most of the guys on this site that know me probably consider me more fundamental than they are. As far as the Baptist's, my basic views are very close and I feel I understand their motivations more today than 4 or 5 years ago. With some good intentions, the legalistic rules that they claim are Gods will is where they have mostly gone wrong.
The reason I have posted this blog is due in part a reaction to my close Christian friends. Over the years they have really influenced me more than they probably realize. I may not be able to express my opinions well but I have been listening and thinking and really trying to wrap my head around my past leanings and how they fit with my new understanding of what truly is God's will. My friends have made great points and really have caused me to reexamine what my true motivations are. In discussions and readings the most overriding theme that I have picked up on lately and very strongly is that Christ <> Western Republican Bushy Capitalism. And I have heard that loud and clear. But what is left out of those discussions is another truth which is Christ <> Eastern, Tribal Global warming Entitlements either.
It seems that there is a movement to make anyone who is a mainline Christian and/or conservative out to be completely wrong and should be ashamed of their views. I totally agree that their motivations and reasons for their stance can be wrong and in many cases my own motivations and reasons were/are just as misguided. But that is where I stop. Sometimes even a blind squirl can find a nut. In other words, they could be right for all the wrong reasons.
Further, those "enlightened few" who can't stand how the holier than though fundamentalists treat others but from my view they are increasingly guilty of the same offense.
In closing, I don't agree with everything Medved said but he definitely described a more palatable description of conservative views and logic. My other point about the illusion of compassion on the left especially the vocal left is just that, probably fake. I believe a conservative could be against government entitlements and actually love someone while holding that opinion. If you truly loved someone and you knew that long term dependence on charity is worse for that person in the long run than a more thoughtful relational charity from the church and private organizations. And yes I do agree some conservatives motivation to curb entitlements are greedy misers but I hope that is not my motivation.
this article explains a conservative.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/JohnStossel/2007/07/11/freedom_and_benevolence_go_together
Post a Comment