Diana Butler Bass wrote:

Hauerwas and Willimon believe that Christendom, the ideal of a Christian nation, was historically wrongheaded from the start. “The church,” they argue, “doesn’t have a social strategy; the church is a social strategy.”

I'm inclined to think that Hauerwas and Willimon were right as far as it goes, and that Kennedy, to the extent that he believed that the church needed secular society to serve as a bulwark, was wrong.

But I don't think that the Christian left fully gets this either. They would have the church substitute a right-of-center social strategy with a leftist one.

To the extent that the church has any social strategy I would argue that it should mostly be a conservative one because conservatism has the more realistic view of human nature and the role of the government. But for the most point the church should just be the church.

One last comment: Dr. Kennedy was a credit to evangelicalism. I can say this with confidence because until now he was rarely singled out for attention by Sojourners.

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | September 6, 2007 12:44 PM

Well, I'll agree with Diana on one thing. The emerging/methodist church certainly caters to the wants of its membership.

Posted by: kevin s. | September 6, 2007 12:49 PM

Dr. Kennedy was a credit to evangelicalism. I can say this with confidence because until now he was rarely singled out for attention by Sojourners.

And that's only because he's now dead, not because Sojo didn't know who he was and what he stood for. But I watched his show a couple of times, and when someone asked for my opinion of him I said, "Kennedy has his own agenda." He was on the board of the Moral Majority, and that told me all I need to know.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | September 6, 2007 12:57 PM

Posted by: Wolverine | September 6, 2007 12:44 PM

"To the extent that the church has any social strategy I would argue that it should mostly be a conservative one because conservatism has the more realistic view of human nature."

Who says Christianity has to be realistic? To me it seems self-evident that the agenda of American liberalism is derived from the Gospel, even if it has gone off the deep end in some directions. That's what secular liberals have in common with people like Kennedy; they both envision idealistic utopias rather than playing by the rules of the "real world." I think what Sojo is trying to do is reclaim the secular liberal vision for the church, where it properly belongs. If they are over-politicizing it, you can't say they haven't had good role models...

Posted by: Another nonymous | September 6, 2007 1:06 PM

I don't think it was sign of a good things that a movie theatre in North Carolina began opening Sundays in 1963 and the community no longer had any sense of the propriety of business other than the modern 24/7 materialist frenzy.

But one must measure this apparent external outward show of balance in life by the extreme hypocrisy that was the undercurrent, the undertow that pulled us all in, as it were.

One was the racism that permeated America, but was particularly severe in the South where that Sunday lassitude was really an oppressive moral inversion that festered decade after decade.

America's always styled itself as "good," whether in Rockwell paintings or the high-sounding words of the rebels' founding documents.

The fifties were the culmination of the fullness of a kind of high hypocrisy in which the tensions of reality with underlying truths were becoming unbearable.

The world was changing - atomic bombs, communists, lots of fear, and that tipped over the increasingly precarious apparent social balance.

The resultant explosion that folks like Falwell and Kennedy among many others have decried, was built on this unstable powderkeg of good intentions often gone - let us say it openly - intentionally awry.

Even at the time, it was clear to many who stewed in suburbia that there was a form of godliness, but without the power thereof, as scripture describes.

Dwight Eisenhower's famous observation that it all rested on religion, "and I don't care which one it is" shows how contentless it all was except for a belief in an Americanism all rolled up into consumerism, nascent militarism and church steeples.

Such a time and place grows in nostalgia. This Neverland is the "Godly America" that Kennedy, Falwell and many more (including myself for a long time) remember fondly but falsely that never really was. It's even further in time and place than our own from that of the world of 1611 and 1776, which they would have been complete strangers in themselves, no matter how they rewrote the histories for their respective academies.

There never has been an Eden that replaced Eden.

There's no going back. The "endless war" has been going on a long time - since the beginning and no peace was ever called - not in 1776 or 1956 - but it's not the one we've been talking about lately.

New challenges emerge, and that's why new people must meet them.

Posted by: N.M. Rod | September 6, 2007 1:30 PM

I'm not clear on why Diana Butler Bass only criticizes the religious right as having misguided hope in a "Christian Nation" as I am pretty sure her time at Duke would have exposed her to the historical context of early 20th century progressives who also tended to be liberal and mainline Protestants. These Progressive Protestants were notorious for their commitment to Christian 'civilizations' like the U.S. and planned to bathe all of American society in a post-mil realization of Christian culture and mores.

The point is, when churches and Christians begin to conflate their belief tenets with political platforms and agendas it can go VERY wrong for both the right and the left.

It would be refreshing for Sojourners to acknowledge the truth that both conservatives and liberals have been guilty of this. It would be interesting to reopen the discussion of how should churches engage politics. To conclude the answer is to reject Falwell and Kennedy and embrace Wallis, et al seems far from a satisfactory answer.

Posted by: History Nut | September 6, 2007 1:44 PM

"The fifties were the culmination of the fullness of a kind of high hypocrisy in which the tensions of reality with underlying truths were becoming unbearable."

You must have been reading Flannery O'Connor.

;-)

D

Posted by: Don | September 6, 2007 2:02 PM

Posted by: Alicia | September 6, 2007 1:21 PM

I have to say, personally, the contrast with Schuller's positive message could not have been greater. I felt, if Kennedy was animated by anything, it was hatred of liberals and all things liberal.

I have watched both for the last 15+ years as I got ready for church each Sunday. Schuller was and is positive, but at times a little shallow for me on substance. I have always gotten something from his HOP that challenged for the next week.

I have never heard a sermon out of Kennedy that was even close to hatred of anyone. He pointed out the failings and flaws of several people and organizations that he saw as very 'anti-Chriatian' and what we as believers need to be watchful of with these groups. I will say that I would have perfered to have heard more about what scripture had to say about the issues and less about the individuals or groups that he saw as opposing the cause of Christ. I would not have refered to these individuals or groups so not to give them any 'air-time'.

So - who do you think will complete the 'Old Guard Hat Trick'? Graham - he just got out of the hospotal. Dobson - he has had a heart-attack or two.

If Bill Clinton died and I was asked to write to obit. for the Star&Cykle her in MN. I would write about him being Pres. and husband and father. Highlite his accomplishments as Pres and Gov. Yes - you would have to at least mention the Impeachment. I would have quotes from friends and co-workers about Clinton. But I would never use it to advance my agenda or point out where I believe he errored. (yes - that would be a streach for me from what I have written about the former Pres) You just don't use the passing of a person to take one last cheap shot at them - you don't. OK - if you wanted to write an obit. about Hilter - 'get him with your best shot!'

To the D. James Kennedy Family and the Congregation of Coral Ridge Church.

May the Peace of God our Heavenly Father be with you now and in the days to come.

Peace be to the memory of a good man. Amen.

Blessings to all -

Moderatelad -
.

Posted by: Moderatelad | September 6, 2007 2:09 PM

" If they are over-politicizing it, you can't say they haven't had good role models..."

So you are saying that Sojo is using the template created by the Falwell et al.. to promote liberalism. On this we agree, but I would rather reject the template.

I think it behooves Christians to be unrealistic in their expectations of God, but entirely realistic in their expectations of a fallen mankind.

Posted by: Kevin s. | September 6, 2007 2:46 PM

If this were the local paper obit column, any kind of opinions aor discussions engendered by someone's passing would be inapproriate.

If we couldn't make anything other than panegyrics for those who are no longer with us then studying history wouldn't be worth a bucket of warm spit, nor would we be allowed to draw any conclusions.

I really think, (correction KNOW)
that categorising every opinion and fact into neat bins of "left" or "right" is not only misleading, it's long obsolete.

Anything anyone comes up with first has to be sorted to figure out if it"s "left" or "right" and then be applauded or condemned appropriate to the grade.

Just what service to truth is served by using this system devised long ago around the time of the French Revolution, where the aristocrats sat to the right of the king and the bourgeoise class of merchants to the left?

I find it just allows people to divide themselves to make easy identification for soccer-fan-style confrontations and verbal melees.

Why not address or consider ideas on their merits?

As Gilbert and Sullivan mocked in long-ago music halls:

When all night long a chap remains
On sentry-go, to chase monotony
He exercises of his brains,
That is, assuming that he's got any.
Though never nurtured in the lap
Of luxury, yet I admonish you,
I am an intellectual chap,
And think of things that would astonish you.
I often think it's comical – Fal, lal, la!
How Nature always does contrive – Fal, lal, la!
That every boy and every gal
That’s born into the world alive
Is either a little Liberal
Or else a little Conservative!
Fal, lal, la!

When in that House M.P.'s divide,
If they’ve a brain and cerebellum, too,
They’ve got to leave that brain outside,
And vote just as their leaders tell 'em to.
But then the prospect of a lot
Of dull M. P.’s in close proximity,
All thinking for themselves, is what
No man can face with equanimity.
Then let’s rejoice with loud Fal la – Fal la la!
That Nature always does contrive – Fal lal la!
That every boy and every gal
That’s born into the world alive
Is either a little Liberal
Or else a little Conservative!
Fal lal la!

Posted by: N.M. Rod | September 6, 2007 3:02 PM

history nut:
Please, let's try to get past caricatures and moral superiority and have genuine discussion.

Me:
Stop projecting. You don't really know what my views are on conservatives and progressives living together. But since you don't know I will tell you. In my world view conservatives can do what they want and live how they choose. They just can't really use how they live and force it on other people. That's the difference.

School prayer was just one issue among many that conservatives have fought for. If you want real discussion then why don't you start asking questions instead of assuming things. I think that would help.

p

Posted by: Payshun | September 6, 2007 3:36 PM

Posted by: Payshun | September 6, 2007 3:36 PM

School prayer was just one issue among many that conservatives have fought for.

I as a conservative am not one that is high on prayer in school. My children attend public school and there are several different faiths in our system. One of my middle childs best friends is Hindu and we have been at their home for supper.

The reason I am not a big supporter of prayer in public schools is that I don't want anyone to believe that they are a 'christian' just because they were involved in an assembly and someone 'prayed'. If the students want to have a pastor or priest offer a prayer at a graduation - fine...if that is what the students want.

I believe that Colson said 'as long as there are tests in school - there will be prayer'.

But I also do not believe that someone should be prevented from praying - as long as it does not disturb others. I do not agree with the installation of equipment that is specific to any one religion so that they can practice their faith.

School can be faith friendly and neutral at the sametime.

Blessings -
.

Posted by: moderatelad | September 6, 2007 4:08 PM

Payshun wrote:
Stop projecting. You don't really know what my views are on conservatives and progressives living together. But since you don't know I will tell you. In my world view conservatives can do what they want and live how they choose. They just can't really use how they live and force it on other people. That's the difference.

School prayer was just one issue among many that conservatives have fought for. If you want real discussion then why don't you start asking questions instead of assuming things. I think that would help.

My response:
Look, this is exactly what I am talking about. I am NOT projecting but trying to point out what I regard as some flaws and fallacies in your claims and you retort with a psycho-analysis of my critique. That doesn't take us very far, does it? All that accomplishes is you putting me down and not really interacting with my ideas. Also your refutation of my concern that you were being unfair to conservatives just isn't convincing. "They just can't really use how they live and force it on other people. That's the difference." Are you saying that somehow in your estimation progressives are not interested in imposing their social vision on non-progressives? How would that work exactly? Why are conservatives supposedly the only side interested in convincing others to the merit of their ideas?

I hope that is enough questions to further the conversation because frankly your the tone of your response was disheartening (not hurtful! just disappointing). Don't worry, I can take it though!

Posted by: History Nut | September 6, 2007 4:17 PM

Posted by: Kevin s. | September 6, 2007 2:46 PM

"So you are saying that Sojo is using the template created by the Falwell et al.. to promote liberalism."

Actually yes, although Jim Wallis would claim that the template was created by liberal evangelicals in the 19th century, and I tend to agree.

"On this we agree, but I would rather reject the template."

I understand where you're coming from on this. Liberalism isn't going away, though, which is why I suggest that the church needs to take it back, rather than conceding it to secularists.

"I think it behooves Christians to be unrealistic in their expectations of God, but entirely realistic in their expectations of a fallen mankind."

I agree, but I would leave out the word "entirely." I think the difference between us is one of temperament. I expect more of people, because I see God working through them despite their fallenness. If I had to be completely realistic, it's hard to imagine why I would bother getting out of bed in the morning. That's just the kind of person I am, so, human nature being what it is, it's probably good that there are people like you and Wolverine around as well (and vice versa).

Posted by: Another nonymous | September 6, 2007 4:39 PM

Moderatelad, you said:

"I have watched both for the last 15+ years as I got ready for church each Sunday. Schuller was and is positive, but at times a little shallow for me on substance. I have always gotten something from his HOP that challenged for the next week.

I have never heard a sermon out of Kennedy that was even close to hatred of anyone. He pointed out the failings and flaws of several people and organizations that he saw as very 'anti-Chriatian' and what we as believers need to be watchful of with these groups."

Moderatelad, I agree that Schuller could be a bit saccharine, but I always had to stop watching Kennedy because I found what he had to say offensive, because it seemed so directly targeted at liberals, and it seemed rather mean-spirited.

But, perhaps he got so used to talking to the same kind of audience that he didn't realize the kind of impression what he had to say would make on people who were trying to be open-minded. I'm not a member of the "religious left" but I think Sojourners is equally guilty of "preaching to the choir" and unnecessarily polarizing Christians.

Posted by: Alicia | September 6, 2007 4:54 PM

I'm not a member of the "religious left" but I think Sojourners is equally guilty of "preaching to the choir" and unnecessarily polarizing Christians.

Oh, I don't know about that. The conservatives have had it going for so long in evangelicalism that it seems that if any strong statement critical of the right is akin to "polarization." On top of that, the same accusation was made about the prophets of old, who spoke truth but offended people either in power of who wanted power. I don't know how long you've been on this blog, but the conservatives who frequent it have said some nasty and inaccurate things about Jim Wallis because they don't like the way he thinks.

That said, today we do live in an age, not unlike the Protestant Reformation (although the issues are far, far different), where controversy is sometimes necessary. But you see, Kennedy had a mega-church, while Wallis has no chance of, and probably as much interest in, leading one -- he'll keep on doing what he's doing until God calls him home.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | September 6, 2007 5:10 PM

I find your post on D. James Kennedy most helpful, Diana, and am going to post a link to it with comments on Friday on the CrossWalk America blog (http://blog.crosswalkamerica.org). I found your post neither scathing (as some of the comments seem to suggest), nor did it gloss over problematic aspects of his ministry, which is often tempting to do when someone dies (even if we disagree with them in important ways). I think you placed Kennedy in an historical context and pointed us forward in a way that is both constructive and accurate.

Incidentally, while CrossWalk America was walking across the country meeting with Christians at the grassroots last year, we certainly found plenty of confirmation that your assessment of the state of Christianity and where it's headed is accurate. We met so many people "on the ground" who long for (and are living) the very kind of Christian faith you have insisted for years is emerging - one that is post-modern, and post-christendom, and yet is not simply defined by the era it is moving beyond but by the faith and practices it is emerging into.

Regarding Kennedy, I have found his insistence that Christians must act as "God's vice-regents" to lay claim on every aspect of society, from education to government to entertainment to be a most unfortunate diversion from what the Spirit is trying to prosper among us right now. I've got plenty of complaints about how we in the progressive Christian community act on our faith (and fail to act), but I must admit that I hope you are right that Kennedy's passing, and that of Falwell, moves us further beyond the Christendom era into the opening of another - one that is less concerned with turning America into a Christian nation and more concerned with helping Christian churches be, and become, more Christian.

Posted by: Eric Elnes | September 6, 2007 5:27 PM

Posted by: Alicia | September 6, 2007 4:54 PM

'...not a member of the "religious left" but...'

I really don't think that Kennedy 'hated' anyone so much as he saw what they were doing as wrong. He faught them in court and won. He had open debates on several subjects and carried the day on the issue at hand. He took issue with what they believed or sanctioned but from what I have seen, respected the person. Many times his statements were more of the sort - 'if you are going to be tollerant - include the 'Christians' too'. Kennedy did not claim to be tollerant but he was respectful for the most part.

Personally - I am just looking for level ground.

Have a great evening - both my kids have soccer games tonight and I am going to catch as much of them as I can.

Blessings -
.

Posted by: Moderatelad | September 6, 2007 5:33 PM

HN
That doesn't take us very far, does it?

Me:
It only takes us as far as you allow it. You want your cake and to be able to eat it too. Your points for all intents and purposes were done in the same way mine were. I agree my tone could be less abrasive. But I am really tired of being gentle w/ conservatives. I am also tired of seeing conservatives be as abrasive as they want in their presentation and views. Maybe we need to learn how to communicate w/ each other and still be more respectful.

HN:
All that accomplishes is you putting me down and not really interacting with my ideas.

Me:
I am not putting you down. I have not insulted you or said that you don't matter. I have challenged your ideas. I am sorry if you feel insulted. That was not my intent.

You:
Also your refutation of my concern that you were being unfair to conservatives just isn't convincing.

Me:
I can understand that. Maybe I am unfair to conservatives. But then when I think about how damaging their ideology is, I tend to think not. but that may be wrong. I would like you to further explain how?

You:
Are you saying that somehow in your estimation progressives are not interested in imposing their social vision on non-progressives?

Me:
Oh no I can be honest and say in many ways we are imposing our ideas for the environment (global warming,) for social justice, and destroying the myth of the Christian nation on conservatives. As it stands you all have been clinging to certain myths that deserved to be dispelled. One major myth is that gay marriage will destroy marriage. that's not true. the only ones that can destroy marriage are the people in the relationship.

Another is that the government can't do anything to help people. It's a tool just like everything else. It can help but it is not a panacea. What you fail to understand when it comes to progressives like myself is that we genuinely don't believe the government can fix everything. But it is one of the best tools to reach as many people as possible. But people that believe like me also believe in grass roots solutions. They are the best to promote the change that progressives and green party folks believe in.

You:
How would that work exactly?

Me:
Umm well for the environment we can start by passing new legislation to cause car companies to increase the gas mileage for their engines, we can also encourage alternative ideas for eating beef and cutting down the damge our food consumption is doing to the atmosphere. There is a lot more but I think that's where I want to end it.

You:
Why are conservatives supposedly the only side interested in convincing others to the merit of their ideas?

Me:
Yah I was wrong. both sides want to convince others of the merits of their ideas. The only difference is that many progressives (and I fit into this group) don't believe our many of our social ideas will effect you at all. Gay marriage won't effect you or me as I am not marrying a man. Immigrant rights could effect you but I am not sure where you live and how that impacts you.

You:
I hope that is enough questions to further the conversation because frankly your the tone of your response was disheartening (not hurtful! just disappointing). Don't worry, I can take it though!

Me:
I know you can. that's why we are talking. Oh and I never claimed that I am not morally superior, I did not imply it either. I am equal. That's what I mean when I say you were projecting. If I had claimed that I was superior then I would never have made the claim that you were projecting. You all are not any less idealistic then we on the left are. But for some reason you and Wolverine believe that makes conservatism a better way for people to live. As someone that grew up in that, I can say it doesn't.

p

Posted by: Payshun | September 6, 2007 5:41 PM

I'd just like to say thank you to NM Rod for continutally infusing these threads with wisdom.

Posted by: apenner | September 6, 2007 6:07 PM

I'd like to emphasize that there are plenty of us who don't delight in either the death of the righteous, the wicked or those of us in between.

I think when we peel back the onion of our own soul's layers we will find plenty to give us sorrow at our own wickedness, seeing ourselves as God sees us, so we have no place to stand where our own judgment won't condemn us too. That is most often the one God uses instead of the absolute of His own - and we still fail.

John Donne wrote so long ago,

"Send not for whom the bell tolls -
It tolls, for thee."

So when we begin to realise on our soul's journey, trying to conform ourselves more to Jesus, that some things we used to think were so, really ain't, it doesn't mean joy at the death of another who still espouses or even promotes that same thinking.

That's why, in earlier threads where some questions about the absolute evil that some have practiced in the past, I was careful to include myself in thought if not in deed, so that it was not demonisation of the other.

We must be careful not to elevate teachers too highly - after all, scripture warned that there ought to be few of them, since they have the potential for spreading false ideas as well as true ones, even if inadvertently - either in life, or posthumously. Mankind has a tendency to create Gods out of the departed which can elevate their errors as well as truths to canon.

Billy Graham has said of how people ought to remember him, "Less of Billy and more of Jesus."

I really believe, like John Donne,
that the death of anyone diminishes me as part of the whole of the fabric of mankind.

I can disagree respectfully and vehemently when the issue is human rights, with James Dobson, who I supported in the past or with the late Jerry Falwell who believed in "bombing them all to Hell in the name of the Lord," or recently deceased D. James Kennedy whose "restoration of Christian America" I found to be of a foundational fallacy, and still feel a loss of a precious member of the human family, however flawed they might be when they die.

I acknowledge that they were likely more personally moral than I. I myself don't expect to be mourned, nor is that even important. I just hope without seeking personal reward to be allowed to be part of His Kingdom when this life is through.

Let good in love be done because it is what He wants, and is right, can be the sole reward - my prayer which I realise is humanly impossible! Virtue really is its own reward, even as the opposite of doing evil has contained within it its own punishment.

It is no disrespect to evaluate a man's ideas posthumously, but is instead taking him with the consideration that anyone's life deserves. Weigh them and see which of them is worth valuing or avoiding. It is true that sometimes the final judgment on his wisdom or folly won't be immediately evident.

"No man is an island,
Entire of itself.
Each is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less.
As well as if a promontory were.
As well as if a manner of thine own
Or of thine friend's were.
Each man's death diminishes me,
For I am involved in mankind.
Therefore, send not to know
For whom the bell tolls,
It tolls for thee."

Posted by: N.M. Rod | September 6, 2007 6:48 PM

Payshun,
I don't want to "have my cake and eat it too." I am just not interested in the tired, old partisan "debates" that really don't deal with the issues. To me, a lot of your complaints about conservatives sound fairly partisan and not based on many specifics, and it certainly doesn't match my reality. [E.g. of your partisanship - you wrote, "But I am really tired of being gentle w/ conservatives. I am also tired of seeing conservatives be as abrasive as they want in their presentation and views."]

I am friends with left and right, and I try to understand both positions. I am not a moderate, but I am also not what you would think of as a traditional social conservative. I do not know many conservatives who define themselves only by what they oppose. There are plenty of policies they are in favor of too. In fact, two can play that game. Why are you, as a leftist, always "opposing" issues that you consider related to personal morality? Why do you only support social programs that involve curbing other people's economic activity (like legislation on 'global warming' that dictates personal choice in energy consumption) or dictating how they conduct their lives as citizens (allowing unfettered immigration without concern for cultural assimilation).

I appreciate your honesty on why you are frustrated with conservatives. [You wrote, "But then when I think about how damaging their ideology is, I tend to think not. but that may be wrong."] I think this admission on your part might bring us to a place that would be helpful - a discussion of policies and not just debates back and forth over whose politics is God's politics. Frankly, I have little hope of every really perfecting my Christianity here on earth and I am skeptical that I will ever have enough certitude to proclaim my political persuasions also happen to be God's political persuasion. So when the left does that I am not clear on why that is okay, and when the right does that it is "harmful" and a "monologue" (to quote the blog home page).

I do dispute your claim that conservative ideology is damaging, just like I would dispute the claim that liberal ideology is damaging. The fact is there are merits in both systems, although I happen to find more resonance with a view of society that is skeptical of the ability of individuals and groups of individuals to hold power over others without falling prey to corruption. Right now, that happens to be a more conservative position. I am also saddened by the multitude of unintended consequences that liberal social reform has brought upon our society.

Finally, let's stop once and for all this caricature (and yes, it is truly cartoonish) that all conservatives who happen to also be Christian are lobbying to install prayer in public schools, trying to persecute gay men and women with the marriage debate, or propagating inaccurate views of the relationship between faith and our government. Honestly, I get so tired of the conspiracy-tinged responses to Christians who aren't leftist. There are millions of us who are disgusted by theocracy and are truly compassionate towards those whose lifestyles don't match our own.

And finally, of course the government can help people. It does all the time on a local and national level. The gov't provides law and order, helps ensure food and drug safety, protects our national security, helps standardize things like currency, road systems, etc. The point conservatives are making is that there are legitimate drawbacks to the position that the government is nearly always the best means of bringing about social change. Capitalism, and not federal programs, uplifted America's poor to a very wealthy standard of living in comparison with other countries, including Europe. Furthermore, I would think that Roe v. Wade would have at least taught social activists the lesson that imposing social change upon an undesiring electorate can do deep and lasting damage to civic unity. The same goes for gay marriage.

Lastly, I am not saying that conservatism has all the answers. What I am saying is let's stop debating which side, left or right, is closer to God's politics and let's start dealing with each issue one by one rather than resorting to partisanship.

Posted by: History Nut | September 6, 2007 8:44 PM

Responding to the first respondent, Billy Graham has always been a gentleman and never been a triumphalist, espousing Falwell and Kennedy's 'let's impose Christianity on the world' kind of doctrine. graham has always been Christlike and humble, offering Christ to the world as He Himself offered His Salvation. I see Christ in Graham; in Falwell and Kennedy I see something much more like the arrogant prelates, popes and bishops who were the expression of the dark side of the medieval church.

Posted by: Ted Voth Jr | September 6, 2007 10:24 PM

I hope I read your comments about James Dobson incorrectly and that you weren't implying you would mourn for Billy Graham but not for Dobson.

No, that's not what I meant. We can and should mourn the man himself but not necessarily his legacy, and I understand the difference. If Bass made a mistake, it was in not saying or alluding to that in her entry about Kennedy. Furthermore, in the 1970s Graham came to reject the type of destructive partisanship that results in that kind of rancor you see today, especially on this blog -- the folks who complain that Falwell, Kennedy and Dobson have made a living polarizing this country basically have good reasons for saying so. That's why I say that far more people will miss Graham than the other three.

The constant drumbeat of the tyranny of evangelical conservatives and the "injustice" of conservative stances is just a sad example of when one can't make an argument on its own merits one resorts to ad hominem attacks and logical infallacies.

If it were only so simple. But you see, I personally know what it's like to have my faith questioned -- I "accepted Jesus as my Savior" in 1979 and can quote Scripture with the best of them -- and personally been patronized because I've never subscribed to the conservative agenda. The idea that a true, "born-again" Christian isn't a Republican is lost on a lot of those leaders, who have long been insulated from those not like them. And besides, most of us on the other side can and do make solid arguments to challenge that agenda, but we're still put down by the right for the same reasons. And that fires us up, certainly me, because they are insinuating that our conversions aren't really valid.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | September 6, 2007 10:26 PM

Why is it that when a Christian woman is intelligent and successful, someone must refer to her as "uppity"? She studied hard and wrote a good book. That makes her arrogant?

By the way, a person's death is often the occasion for examining his or her legacy, such as it is. To do so is not callous, disrepectful, or insulting. It's news.

Posted by: Richard | September 7, 2007 12:19 AM

Hi Christian leftists and rightists (whatever those terms mean),

I live among many faithful, devout, practising Muslims who would not like to live in an 'Islamic nation'. The Quran, you see, also teaches that man was born with a free will.

Jesus taught "let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven." The Lord does not say which particular group of men, but if Kennedy's 'shining light' caused people to praise God then he must have been a great Christian, right?

Was the late Kennedy like Pat Robertson? John Hagee? The late EV Hill? The late Bishop G E Patterson? Bill Hybels? Rick Warren? Tony Campolo? Joyce Meyer? Ted Haggard? Albert Schweitzer? Mother Teresa? Greg Boyd? Tim Scarborough? Ann Coulter? Shane Claibourne? Pope John Paul 2? Pope Benedict? Bishop Desmond Tutu? Martin Luther King?

To whom shall we compare him?

Well,

"God would rather we all go to hell WILLINGLY than drag a single person to heaven against his or her will."

I heard that from Rev Timothy Njoya,a Presbyterian minister in Kenya, East Africa.
I believe it is very good theology. It represents a Biblically healthy view of the relationship between each of us and God. God is such that He will never take away the freedom of choice that He has given to each of us. He is not into 'man'ipulation and coercion.

Did Kennedy teach this? I ask because, in comments on this page, I see him linked with 'claiming back America for Christ' etc. This is interesting ...

What is the value of a 'Christian nation'? What does the term mean? Would it be different from an 'Islamic nation' like, say, IRAN? Does God care so much what we call ourselves, how we defend ourselves and our 'rights', or is He more exacting, that is, more into examining our motives? Does God want America to be a 'Christian nation'(whatever that means)? Would ALL followers of Jesus Christ want to live in the 'United Christian States of America'?

Take away free will and there is no genuine following of Jesus Christ. That is the danger of a theocratic agenda. It is about political power. Christ never says "you must follow me".

- Alu
Dar es Salaam

Posted by: Robert Alu | September 7, 2007 2:25 AM

I often disagree with anyone who puts their religious faith to make another look inferior, especially if they hold their conscience of their beliefs superior to another.

That's the legacy of D. James Kennedy and Jerry Falwell, who have now gone to their reward. Bass was only trying to make light of that because their efforts have in many ways hurt the Gospel they said they were committed to. That's different from "American Christendom."

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | September 7, 2007 8:33 AM

What it all boils down to is one's view of scripture. Ms. Bass clearly believes that all ways lead to God and that no one is really "lost". This flies in the face of scripture repeatedly and justifies her trivialization (and I'm being kind in my choice of words) of EE and the work that Dr. Kennedy accomplished.

According to people like Ms. Bass, we are not fighting Satan and his cohorts as told in Ephesians 6:12, but poverty, "homophobs" ,those who would dare declare unborn children as human beings that should be protected and anything else that they label as the "religious right".

Without a saving relationship with Jesus, we're lost for all eternity. Ms Bass should be thoroughly ashamed of herself for slamming those who preach the gospel.

Posted by: Ray | September 7, 2007 9:42 AM

Robert Alu said:

"What is the value of a 'Christian nation'? What does the term mean? Would it be different from an 'Islamic nation' like, say, IRAN... Does God want America to be a 'Christian nation'(whatever that means)? Would ALL followers of Jesus Christ want to live in the 'United Christian States of America'?

Take away free will and there is no genuine following of Jesus Christ. That is the danger of a theocratic agenda. It is about political power. Christ never says "you must follow me"."

Robert, you are dead right about theocracy -- it is the most anti-God form of governance possible, in which men try and dignify and bolster their own desire for domination and power by associating themselves with "What God Wants." Thank you for your excellent post.

Posted by: Alicia | September 7, 2007 10:07 AM

"Robert, you are dead right about theocracy -- it is the most anti-God form of governance possible, in which men try and dignify and bolster their own desire for domination and power by associating themselves with "What God Wants." Thank you for your excellent post."

True, in practice, because the application of faith through fallible leadership is likely to corrupt the faith.

I think our country is nonetheless founded on a number of Godly principles, with an added emphasis on reducing the power of government. There is a distinction to be made between this and theocracy, and certainly a distinction between this and Iran.

Posted by: kevin s. | September 7, 2007 10:54 AM

I believe that most believers know that 'faith without works is dead'.

Just because someone has no calling to go over seas and do mission work in the inner area of Africa does not mean they are not a true believer. Just because they do not go and give of their time in a depressed urban area of their city does not mean the do not have a heart to spread the Good News. I grew up in a congregation where one of my friends parents had a very comfortable life. Home in MN and AZ, more than enough money in the bank for their retirement. All the time I grew up the Dad was working on some board at church or for the private high school our church supports. But I know that amoung other things - 100 of kids attended Bible Camp every summer funded by this man and his wife. These were kids whose parents would never have the money to send one kid much less three - yet they all went to camp and many are in ministry today. So - just because this guy would never have gone on a missions trip himself - he does not understand the idea of 'faith and works'?

Oh - and no one ever knew who paid the way. Guess he understood the idea of 'right and left hand'.

Blessings -
.

Posted by: Moderatelad | September 7, 2007 11:43 AM

"Ms. Bass clearly believes that all ways lead to God and that no one is really "lost"...According to people like Ms. Bass, we are not fighting Satan and his cohorts as told in Ephesians 6:12, but poverty, 'homophobs' ,those who would dare declare unborn children as human beings that should be protected and anything else that they label as the 'religious right'"

"this does reek of arrogance."

It appears that the Beliefnet monitor removed the "Diana Butler Bass your [sic] a jerk" post. I'm certainly grateful for that, but I wonder what it was in what she wrote that prompted such vitriol and, in the case of Ray's quotes at the top here, unsubstantiated ad hominems.

Richard is correct (September 7, 2007 12:19 AM) when he wrote that the occasion of someone's death is often a time to reflect on that person's legacy, both positive and negative. I don't think Diana departed from that tradition. She mentions Evangelism Explosion and remembers it positively, but perhaps this positive feature of Dr. Kennedy's legacy is obscured by the negative: specifically, his mixing of Christianity with idolatrous Americanism. Certainly that too is part of Dr. Kennedy's legacy. Is it really arrogant to bring that up?

As an example of what Richard mentions, the also recent death of opera starr Luciano Pavarotti has stirred both positive and negative comments about his legacy. On the one hand, he is being remembered for the quality of his singing voice and his popularizing of opera among many who might otherwise not ever have listened to it, but he is also being criticized for being too willing to "cross over" into more popular music performances. Is Diana's rememberance of Dr. Kennedy really any different?

Peace,

Posted by: Don | September 7, 2007 12:03 PM

Another way to put it would be - its okay for liberal Christians to use their faith in service of their political goals but when conservative Christians do it there are scare tactics used to stoke the conspiracy theorists of the threat of theocracy or reconstructionism.

How about a conversation about the appropriate role of faith in the pubic sphere? Why is Wallis so comfortable with liberal Christians being overt about their faith in their political action but so disapproving when their conservative brothers and sisters do the same? Is it just because he like the liberal causes better? If so, then why not reframe the debate to be about which policies are superior and stop talking about the illegitimacy of conservative political behavior? The error would then be not that conservative Christians dare to be political but that they dare to reject the political proposals of the left.

Posted by: History Nut | September 7, 2007 12:12 PM

I sez a public flagellation o' yuz would be most appropriate, Ms. Butler Bass - how 'bout on the Washinton Mall tonight 'bout 8 pm?

And whilst we're at it, weez gonna strip yuz of that double last name thingie, too - the real problem w/ the America today, and the ultimate proof that, as Donny so convincingly argued, the last daze is upon us!

Posted by: canucklehead | September 7, 2007 12:33 PM

>>>"Furthermore, 19th century evangelicals and their 20th century heirs were always focused on the individual's responsibility to pursue self-improvement (another way of articulating their commitment to tangible sanctification) - that's why you had a remarkable movement of social reform based on evangelical principles and faith accompanied by a fervent desire to uplift their surrounding culture." History NUT

Yowser, there's nothing like some good ol' fashioned historical revisionism, is there?

The use of the term "evangelicals" in reference to 19th and/or 20th century Christians is, of course, fraught with problems depending on a number of variables - what country/part of the world is in view, an agreeable definition of "evangelical," etc.

That being said, and since this is an American based blog, it is irrefutable that a significant part of the 19th century American evangelical legacy was late 19th century and early to mid 20th century fundamentalism.

Accordingly, History NUT's claim that "19th century evangelicals were ALWAYS FOCUSED on the individual's responsibility to pursue self-improvement.....and a fervent desire to uplift their surrounding culture" is, at best, only partly true (depending on the variables) and, at worst, entirely misleading w/ regard to the North American situation.

I'm not sure how you're using the term "self-improvement" but it smacks of what American fundamentalists referred to as "the social gospel" which most of them wanted absolutely nothing to do with; in fact, in opposition to what they perceived to be liberalism or modernism they went to great lengths to FOCUS ON theological belief as the be-all and end-all of the Christian experience.

And "...a fervent desire to uplift their surrounding culture." Say what? Again, depending on certain variables, it could well be argued that one of the key agendas of American fundagelicalism in the late 19th/early 20th centuries was to stigmatize and criticize the surrounding culture, to cite it as a primary indicator that the last days were upon us and to do everything within their power to separate themselves from the surrounding culture!

In that regard, the fundamentalism represented by people like Falwell and Kennedy as it impacted their view of American culture, was faithfully constructed upon a curious dualism.

Posted by: | September 7, 2007 1:01 PM

HN:
To me, a lot of your complaints about conservatives sound fairly partisan and not based on many specifics, and it certainly doesn't match my reality.

Me:
That's because a lot of my complaints about conservatives are ideological and philosphical differences. That's why they are more general. I am attacking the ideas behind the philosphy and practice. You are (to your credit) attempting to humanize it a little bit.

HN:
I am friends with left and right, and I try to understand both positions. I am not a moderate, but I am also not what you would think of as a traditional social conservative. I do not know many conservatives who define themselves only by what they oppose.

Me:
I too am friends w/ people on the right side of the aisle. My mentor is a devout, fundamentalist, conservative white man. He believes "evolution is a lie." He also blames the majority of moral and political failures on the democrats. They are his scapegoat. I bring him up to point out that I love this man to life. He is an amazing friend and guide. Even though I am a contemplative, mystic black man God has united us to serve and minister together. We don't agree on anything political. He thinks global warming is a myth. Let's just say I don't. That doesn't mean we can't work together. We do great things for the kingdom. Basically what I am saying is that I believe in the gospel of rencilation. What matters is the heart of love for people.

You are right, conservatives stand for a lot. It's just stuff I don't completely agree w/ like stem cell research. Conservatives stand for the unborn life of all human beings. I am against abortion but I understand it will never be completely done away w/. It can be lessened though. That's more my goal. That and healing and being a counsellor to those that had them.

You:
Why are you, as a leftist, always "opposing" issues that you consider related to personal morality?

Me:
Because I know issues revolving around sex are a little different than other issues and judging people for how they are screwed up sexually is just dumb. We are all broken in that department so it seems kind of lame to place my moral committments to my God on others shoulders. They were my choice.

You:
Why do you only support social programs that involve curbing other people's economic activity (like legislation on 'global warming' that dictates personal choice in energy consumption) or dictating how they conduct their lives as citizens (allowing unfettered immigration without concern for cultural assimilation).

Me:
Historically cultural assimilation has always meant becoming culturally white. So I am against that. I am not saying that people should not learn english but I am saying other ethnic groups should not have to sacrifice their history or ethnic identity to fit into the majority culture. That smacks of the racism that we as Christians should fight against. Of all the industrialized nations this nation pollutes the most. Since this world is for everyone, then this nation must learn to be sacrificial and I am not talking from it's excess either. If we are truly going to lead then that is what we must do.

When you said: "I think this admission on your part might bring us to a place that would be helpful - a discussion of policies and not just debates back and forth over whose politics is God's politics." I think you missed the point here a little. We have been discussing policy for a while and that is not fully getting us anywhere. It can get us somewhere if your idea is for some type of consensus. I like discussing the idea behind the policy aswell. I also believe discussing ideas gets to the heart of what people believe. That's the most important thing eternally.

If I may be so bold to say I think you are mistaken when you say: "I do dispute your claim that conservative ideology is damaging, just like I would dispute the claim that liberal ideology is damaging." Let's talk about homosexuality. What conservatives don't understand is that their stances on the subject actually creates condemnation and judgement for young struggling members of the LGBTQ community. Those group are taught from jump to feel inferior. That's unacceptable.

I also take my liberal allies to task for using relativity to crush all moral standards. I am a relativist. But relativism is a tool that is used to love people and not be judgemental. But using relativism to justify or make true evil invisible is wrong. I know plenty of liberals that do that. That makes me sick.

Both relativism and homophobia are damaging to people. It robs them of their power and the ability to love themselves and other people. That's damaging.

You:
I am also saddened by the multitude of unintended consequences that liberal social reform has brought upon our society.

Me:
Well to be fair liberal social policy has not truly been tried. Since you are a history nut I don't have to tell you how and why the different ghettoes were made in this country. But for those that don't know places like Cabrini Green were designed to deal w/ the migratory patterns of moving black people. When the idea was first discussed there was the best of intentions but as they became reality there were many people behind the scenes that actively sabotaged it. So to be fair true social liberal policy has seldom been tried in this country.

You:
Finally, let's stop once and for all this caricature (and yes, it is truly cartoonish) that all conservatives who happen to also be Christian are lobbying to install prayer in public schools, trying to persecute gay men and women with the marriage debate, or propagating inaccurate views of the relationship between faith and our government. Honestly, I get so tired of the conspiracy-tinged responses to Christians who aren't leftist. There are millions of us who are disgusted by theocracy and are truly compassionate towards those whose lifestyles don't match our own.

Me:
Well if they stopped acting cartoonish in opposing those values then they would not be portrayed as cartoons. There are many conservatives that want what you described above. They like persecuting gay men and women, they want the Christian nation myth. They believe it to be true when it was not and will never be.(Please notice I did not say all.) I am talking about a very select group. Unfortunately you all do a piss poor job of reigning in those elements. Oh and believe me we liberals do just as a poor a job reigning in our broken on our end.

I also know the point conservatives are trying to make. They believe churches and individual citizens can do that. I am mixed on it. Because as a green party liberal progressive I believe in citizen empowerment. Help people locally, nationally and globally. But I also know when it comes to dealing w/ being poor in this country the government is one of the best tools to deal charity and justice. It has the resources to reach many people and we can still act on our own. I just want a safety net that protects the weak and infirmed. Theologically speaking there is a lot of support for this in the Tanakh (Hebrew Old Testament.)

You said:
I would think that Roe v. Wade would have at least taught social activists the lesson that imposing social change upon an undesiring electorate can do deep and lasting damage to civic unity.

Me:
Well to be fair civic unity has never truly existed at least not in this country so I think your point is a mute one.

You:
Lastly, I am not saying that conservatism has all the answers. What I am saying is let's stop debating which side, left or right, is closer to God's politics and let's start dealing with each issue one by one rather than resorting to partisanship.

Me:
Well that would be fair but how? Your ideology and conservative framework define how you approach the issue. I don't really know what that is but you are coming into this discussion w/ an opinion. I guess what I am getting at is how are you going to deal w/ people that don't want to live by conservative ideals.

As a progressive I am almost libertarian here. I say let people live as they choose and either allow everyone equal footing under the law or remove the law (as long as it causes no harm to people, and animals that can't defend themselves.)

p

Posted by: Payshun | September 7, 2007 1:05 PM

"Why don't you ask her?"

I kinda did.

"YOu presume you already know how she would respond."

I kinda have an idea.

"So who's being arrogant?"

I don't think this qualifies.

Posted by: kevin s. | September 7, 2007 1:25 PM

Payshun,
Thanks for your thoughtful post.

I have a feeling we can continue our conversation in future posts.

Abortion & Roe v. Wade: I wasn't as clear as I should have been. From my perspective (I know a few vintage New Left Hippies who agree with me
here) the cultural left seriously miscalculated when they decided to push abortion "reform" through the courts and not through legislation.
This created a major wedge issue for the country and guaranteed that many people would oppose abortion on merits having little to do with
its morality and more to do with the fundamental problem of forcibly moving society along on an issue it wasn't quite ready for.

Homosexuality: Some of my friends happen to be gay. They also find the whole push for gay marriage a big mistake (they are worried about longterm fallout similar to the response to the overreach of Roe V. Wade). It is just too easy to claim that opposition to gay marriage is "harmful"
to gays because that doesn't deal with the nuance of our reality. Not all gays really want gay marriage or desire to see it enforced by the
courts. It is way to simplistic to equate a very vocal gay lobby with the entire U.S. population of homosexuals.

Ghettoes/Cabrini Green: Ghettoes were not simply "made" - there is plenty of documentation of how ghettoes formed in urban areas for a multitude of reasons, with racism being one of course. Sadly, the black middle class encouraged black ghettoes as much as whites did when they engaged in intra-racial class warfare and resisted the movement of poorer black families into their "middle class" neighborhoods. (See the histories of Sugrue, Cohen on the issue of race and cities in the 20th century.) Furthermore, Cabrini wasn't always a black ghetto. It also housed poor European immigrants too. It's early days look
vastly different than the days following the race riots of the 1960s and 70s.

Payshun - thanks for continuing the dialogue and giving so much thought to your response.

Posted by: History Nut | September 7, 2007 1:53 PM

Posted by: | September 7, 2007 1:01 PM
I don't know who posted this, but I will still respond because there are too many problems that bear correction.

Uhhh, no I am not "revising" history. It is a common assumption by historians of all stripes that evangelicals of the 19th century (in America) were engaged in social reform. The marxist historians have chalked it up to a form of social control, but I doubt the Sojourners crowd would like that interpretation too much. I know I certainly don't.

Of course using the term "evangelical" is going to be problematic. But, I was careful to note that I was talking about 19th century revivalists which is a pretty specific group whose commitment to improving their cities and towns is well-documented in histories written by historians both ambivalent and hos