A lot of us feel that we've watched large sectors of our Christian community in the U.S. engage in several decades of divisive, ineffective, and downright counterproductive political engagement. At best, many attempts at engagement have been superficial, simplistic, and subject to binary thinking where one or two wedge issues easily distinguish the "good guys" from the bad. At worst, we've watched too many of our fellow Christians slip into a "culture war" mindset where neighbors became enemies to be defeated and silenced, not loved as we love ourselves. In addition, we've watched too many members of our faith communities be manipulated by cynical politicians who knew what tune to play to get people of faith marching obediently in their parade.Many of us - sadly, I include myself here - stood on the sidelines and complained about the wrong being done by "the Religious Right." In private, we might say that the major media figures didn't speak for us, but we responded to faith-based misuse of the political process with faith-based disuse. We didn't realize, as we now do, that disuse tends to favor those in power and support the status quo.
As I've watched with sadness what has happened in recent years, I've promised myself again and again that I wouldn't just stand on the sidelines complaining this election season. That's why I'm so thrilled about positive, constructive initiatives like the Matthew 25 Network. Drawing from Jesus' powerful parable about his solidarity with "the least of these," this network invites us as people of faith to step beyond individual self-interest, and even beyond the interest-group politics of "what's best for us" - whether "us" is our denomination, religion, party, or nation. It invites us to consider how to use our vote on behalf of the neediest, the most vulnerable and poverty-stricken ... so that their concerns are our own when we vote. For us, this is inherent in what it means to be followers of Jesus.
Based on these values, the Matthew 25 Network has chosen to support Barack Obama. Does that mean that every one of us is in full agreement with every detail of Senator Obama's campaign? Of course not: we're electing a president, not a Messiah! Blind, uncritical support is part of the misuse that we're trying to move beyond.
This is a significant development, because it comes at the time when the influence of the Religious Right is at an all-time low. The Matthew25 group reject the single-issue politics of the pro-life wing, as well, with a sub-organization called Pro Life Pro Obama, which argues that there is no inherent contradiction in being pro-life and supporting the pro-choice Senator. The reason is that Obama has articulated a desire to reduce abortions by making them unnecessary, rather than illegal (a re-framing of the abortion issue that brings right and left together). In addition to seeking to reduce the need for abortion, they also quite wisely focus on "life" as a choice - and argue that women must be encouraged to choose life and be supported in that decision (that latter part conspicuously absent from most pro-life partisans' considerations).
Of course, there is a backlash. McLaren's approach to the Bible is not a literalist fundamentalist one, but rather interpretative. On issues like homosexuality, for example, this leads him to counsel compassion for the sinners rather than taking a hard-line stance. Those who disagree with him ("foundationalists") invoke plenty of doctrine in their arguments, but can't seem to avoid accusing him of depravity in the course of their arguments. In the political realm, his endorsement for Obama led to him being labeled a "heretic", and far worse. In some ways this political schism reflects the tension within Islam in the modern era, suggesting that these theological and political issues transcend faith and represent a more universal trend. That trend, throughout world history, has pointed in the direction of increasing liberalism and less religious literalism.
There's more to the Religious Left than just McLaren or Matthew 25, of course. Another great resource is the God's Politics blog, which is headed by Jim Wallis and is a co-venture of Beliefnet.com and Sojourner.net. Also, Street Prophets is full-fledged blog progressive liberal blog community with an explicit focus on religion and politics, a spin-off of DailyKos. I think that as the Religious Left finds its voice, it will naturally broaden to Islam and Judaism as well; examples of this include Talk Islam and Ameinu. And there still remain strong voices on the right, such as Beliefnet's own Rod Dreher, who still identify as conservative but whose approach towards politics is independent and principled. Inshallah we can all work together and undo some of the damage wrought by this closing era of conservative religious dominance.

Add to Newsvine
Add to StumbleUpon
Actually, Aziz, you could have avoided the confrontation with Suzy by simply calling Jesus by his name. By putting "prophet" in front of Jesus' name, you're begging the fight for no particular reason.
I don't see it as a confrontation. I reflexively write "Prophet" before Jesus' AS name. Why should Suzy, or I, change our way of venerating him just for others' sake? I'm a muslim blogger. I'm going to be true to myself. I don't think I am being confrontational or offensive by employing my religious context. I am glad Suzy left her comment, it's perfectly valid, I just wanted to make it clear that it was a deliberate usage and not an "error" on my part because we do not share religious axioms.
No, Aziz, you're begging the fight.
If you leave the prophet part off when addressing Jesus, you are simply referring to a religious figure.
However, when attaching the word Prophet to his name, you are now claiming that he is a false idol to billions of people. Gee, that simple view of not sharing religious axioms just got a little sticky, didn't it?
"false idol" ? Your determination to insert words into my mouth suggests that if anyone is begging for a fight, it's you, not me. I've answered enough on this.
Aziz,
I'm not begging for a fight. However, it is not unreasonable for me to say, "hey, when you address something in this way, whether you want to or not, you are saying this."
Someone cannot be both a prophet AND God incarnate, can they?
Addressing someone by name allows Christians to view Jesus as God incarnate, and allows muslims to view Jesus as prophet.
However, giving Jesus the title of prophet would then say that He cannot be God incarnate.
If people are worshipping something that is not God, then indeed, they are worshipping a false prophet, are they not?
Tell me I'm putting words in your mouth all you want. The truth is that they are inferred whether you want to admit it or not.
All I am saying is that in an interfaith setting such as this, THE MOST RESPECTFUL THING YOU CAN DO is simply reference people by their names instead of by the title that any individual faith might give them.
Salaam,
jazzypaul
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.