An Emergent Politics Primer: Part One (by Tony Jones)
I once asked a fellow Minnesotan why he voted for former professional wrestler, Jesse "The Body" Ventura, for governor in 1998. He said, "It was my way of giving the finger to the Democrats and the Republicans."
There's a growing sense among emergents that the polarization in U.S. politics isn't real—it's a script written by the two political parties and the U.S. media. They wrote this script and they perpetuate it because they have the most to gain from its perpetuation. The unnuanced maps showing states as "red" or "blue" disregards the fact that in a red state, as many as 49 percent of the voters are blue, and vice versa.
But even more important, it ignores what we all know to be true: each one of us is a complex mélange of viewpoints and opinions, and very few of us line up with every plank in a party's platform. Being that postmodern Christians are acutely aware of micronarratives and justifiably incredulous toward metanarratives, they are particularly suspicious of the spokespersons of left and right who often begin their pufferies with "Americans believe . . ." But having two sides makes for good television; have six nuanced positions does not.
From a theoretical point of view, both the good and the bad of our democracy in its present state seem to be driven by the concept of unalienable, individual human rights. Dubbed as believable as "witches and unicorns" by the philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre, the modern version of individual rights was invented by John Locke (1632–1704) and written into the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution by Thomas Jefferson and his posse. Carried into the modern world by the French and American revolutions, individual rights became the foundation of liberal democracy, clearly the most robust and equitable of all systems of government yet conceived. And although it happened more slowly than many people would have liked, the concept of individual rights brought about great goods like ending government-backed slavery, women's suffrage, and the civil rights movement.
However, it is also responsible for some serious ills, including the rampant consumerism ("You deserve that new iPod!") that has led to the average U.S. adult carrying a credit card balance of $8,000. And, it seems, the premise of individual rights means that some arguments just aren't winnable - the rights of the mother versus the rights of the unborn child; my right to define "marriage" versus your right to define "marriage." For all its achievements, the shortcomings of social contract theory are now in view.
Emergents don't have a problem with Lockean individual rights per se - their problem is with the fact that unalienable, individual rights is not a biblical-theological virtue. The Bible's call is not to protect the self but to sacrifice the self. Jesus says clearly to his followers, "Drop everything and follow me. ... Let the dead bury their own dead. ... Sell everything you own, give the money to the poor, and follow me. ... Take up your cross daily." An anecdote that corroborates this is supplied by the Roman Catholic spiritual leader Brennan Manning. Years ago, he asked his Jewish friend and poet Shel Silverstein what Jesus meant to him. Silverstein responded a few weeks later when he gave Manning The Giving Tree, now a perpetual best-seller in children's literature. In the simple story, a tree literally gives his life, piece by piece, to a boy as he becomes a man. It's beautiful and poignant, and it represents the self-sacrifice at the center of Jesus' life.
To that, the Apostle Paul adds a score of exhortations to self-control, forgiveness, and reconciliation. Supplement this with the fact that every word of the Hebrew and Christian scripture was written to human beings living in community (the nation of Israel in the former, the early church in the latter), and it becomes untenable for a Christian to base her life on the philosophy that "it's all about me and my rights."
Tony Jones is the national coordinator of Emergent Village. This post is excerpted from his new book, The New Christians: Dispatches from the Emergent Frontier. In the book, Tony gives and insider's view of the emergent church movement and an analysis of American Christianity as a whole.
There's a growing sense among emergents that the polarization in U.S. politics isn't real—it's a script written by the two political parties and the U.S. media. They wrote this script and they perpetuate it because they have the most to gain from its perpetuation. The unnuanced maps showing states as "red" or "blue" disregards the fact that in a red state, as many as 49 percent of the voters are blue, and vice versa.
But even more important, it ignores what we all know to be true: each one of us is a complex mélange of viewpoints and opinions, and very few of us line up with every plank in a party's platform. Being that postmodern Christians are acutely aware of micronarratives and justifiably incredulous toward metanarratives, they are particularly suspicious of the spokespersons of left and right who often begin their pufferies with "Americans believe . . ." But having two sides makes for good television; have six nuanced positions does not.
From a theoretical point of view, both the good and the bad of our democracy in its present state seem to be driven by the concept of unalienable, individual human rights. Dubbed as believable as "witches and unicorns" by the philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre, the modern version of individual rights was invented by John Locke (1632–1704) and written into the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution by Thomas Jefferson and his posse. Carried into the modern world by the French and American revolutions, individual rights became the foundation of liberal democracy, clearly the most robust and equitable of all systems of government yet conceived. And although it happened more slowly than many people would have liked, the concept of individual rights brought about great goods like ending government-backed slavery, women's suffrage, and the civil rights movement.
However, it is also responsible for some serious ills, including the rampant consumerism ("You deserve that new iPod!") that has led to the average U.S. adult carrying a credit card balance of $8,000. And, it seems, the premise of individual rights means that some arguments just aren't winnable - the rights of the mother versus the rights of the unborn child; my right to define "marriage" versus your right to define "marriage." For all its achievements, the shortcomings of social contract theory are now in view.
Emergents don't have a problem with Lockean individual rights per se - their problem is with the fact that unalienable, individual rights is not a biblical-theological virtue. The Bible's call is not to protect the self but to sacrifice the self. Jesus says clearly to his followers, "Drop everything and follow me. ... Let the dead bury their own dead. ... Sell everything you own, give the money to the poor, and follow me. ... Take up your cross daily." An anecdote that corroborates this is supplied by the Roman Catholic spiritual leader Brennan Manning. Years ago, he asked his Jewish friend and poet Shel Silverstein what Jesus meant to him. Silverstein responded a few weeks later when he gave Manning The Giving Tree, now a perpetual best-seller in children's literature. In the simple story, a tree literally gives his life, piece by piece, to a boy as he becomes a man. It's beautiful and poignant, and it represents the self-sacrifice at the center of Jesus' life.
To that, the Apostle Paul adds a score of exhortations to self-control, forgiveness, and reconciliation. Supplement this with the fact that every word of the Hebrew and Christian scripture was written to human beings living in community (the nation of Israel in the former, the early church in the latter), and it becomes untenable for a Christian to base her life on the philosophy that "it's all about me and my rights."
Tony Jones is the national coordinator of Emergent Village. This post is excerpted from his new book, The New Christians: Dispatches from the Emergent Frontier. In the book, Tony gives and insider's view of the emergent church movement and an analysis of American Christianity as a whole. 
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
"unalienable, individual rights is not a biblical-theological virtue."
--I would agree (and so would Locke, I'm sure), though I'd also argue that individual rights are necessary for the exercise of many biblical-theological virtues.
Posted by: jesse | February 18, 2008 2:25 PM
Tony -
What about the exclusive version of that statement, versions of which appear here regularly? To wit: Government's job is to enforce my rights, including my right to live in security. Taking care of social problems is not the government's business.
I don't agree with this view, but I do believe it is the position of most Christians who oppose government activism. They are not basing their philosophy on "It's all about me;" they're simply arguing that it's not about government either.
Posted by: Another nonymous | February 18, 2008 2:36 PM
How then do we explain that Tony, the designated national spokesman for Emergent Village, endorsed Tony on his blog:
http://tonyj.net/2008/01/31/why-obama/
This strikes me as a very partisan move here. Does this mean that Emergent Village = support for Obama?
Posted by: A concerned Christian | February 18, 2008 2:58 PM
"However, it is also responsible for some serious ills, including the rampant consumerism ("You deserve that new iPod!") that has led to the average U.S. adult carrying a credit card balance of $8,000. "
Why is the American right to liberty responsible for this? Isn't it simply sin that people can't live withing their means, at least to this extent? Does government have some role in controlling our sin of covetousness?
Another nonymous raises a good point, so let me piggy back on it. Wouldn't the rejection of meta-narratives come in conflict with a paradigm in which care for the poor inherently metastasizes into advocating economic redistribution?
I would argue that centralized governmental control of the economy inhibits the development of micro-narratives for social good, among other ills. It would seem like there ought to be some discussion of this within the movement, but I haven't seen it publically. In fact, I've seen very little from the movement that would challenge the Democratic meta-narrative in any concrete way.
Posted by: kevin s. | February 18, 2008 3:25 PM
Kevin also has a good point about Democratic meta-narratives. I'm not sure, though, that (government) care for the poor does necessarily metastasize into advocating economic redistribution.
I've recently cited the effects New Deal in the South as an example of the way that the government can work constructively to alleviate poverty—a particularly ironic one, since it was the economic improvement of the South that largely established the Republican ascendancy of the 1980s. One example would be the way the government encouraged the development of local electrical cooperatives, which helped to extend electricity to areas that had previously been considered unprofitable, thus paving the way for higher living standards.
I agree with Kevin that the church needs to talk constructively about how it could work at the micro level. Where I perhaps disagree is that I believe government does have a role - perhaps an essential one.
Posted by: Another nonymous | February 18, 2008 3:58 PM
Tony Jones wrote: "Emergents don't have a problem with Lockean individual rights per se - their problem is with the fact that unalienable, individual rights is not a biblical-theological virtue."
Fortunately the US government is a secular enterprise, not a religious one, and is not founded in "Biblical-theological virtues" but rather, in the words of the US Constitution, is "ordained" by "we the people" for the "general welfare" of human beings living in the world.
So the standard that Lockean individual rights must meet is not a Biblical-theological standard, but the empirical standard of whether that approach to governance is in fact conducive to the general welfare of the people, from whom government derives its sole authority, and whose well-being it is government's sole purpose to serve.
Posted by: SecularAnimist | February 18, 2008 6:07 PM
The sacrifice of oneself presupposes ownership of onesself -- as in my life is my own and I choose to lay it down for you. Christian theology might say your life rightfully belongs to God. Still, that is a religious principle an individual accepts out of free will. In the political sphere, the tenet "your life belongs to God" does not translate into "you life belongs to society" or "your life belongs to the state," which is what you come dangerously close to suggesting. From this it follows that the state has the right to curtail your freedom, your personal choices and your personal expression in the service of an undefined "common good." In arguing that that national average of $8000 in credit card debt is "a serious ill," one assigns a value judgment to what is basically an individual economic decision to accept the cost of borrowing money in return for faster gratification. It's a function of individual liberty to be sure, but you display a certain hubris here: first in the implication that is might be morally acceptable for the state to regulate personal economic decisions in order to "protect" individuals from the consequences of poor choices (which often are really choices the state disapproves of), and second you justify it by suggesting the individual, rather than having the power to think for him- or herself, was in the blind thrall of advertsing ("You deserve that new iPod!"). Once you reduce your perception of the population to sheep, social engineering becomes so much easier, doesn't it? But it never works out. History has shown attempts by societies and governments to curtail liberty to support even laudable social goals don't work. Things tend to snowball. What begins with pointed cajoling, before long becomes coercive law. Coercive law leads to repression. Mass executions soon follow. Certainly there are aspects where the U.S. has failed to live up to its democratic ideals, but high value the American tradition places on respect for individual rights--ingrained in the Declaration and Constitution--did much to prevent the U.S. from going the way of Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia. One should give thoughtful regard to this history before dismissing the American libertarian tradition as "it's all about me and my rights." The inherent problem with limiting freedom in the name of a greater morality is that you can't choose what is foisted on you. The more moral, and therefore difficult, path, but one that offers a far better chance of lasting individual change, requires persuasion followed by followed by voluntary change.
Posted by: Steve | February 18, 2008 6:11 PM
Tony starts out with a promising premise about the controlled, scripted and implicitly disingenuous messages of the 2 major parties, and the fact that these oversimplified polarities don't fit real people very well, but then he veers into a silly attack on the concept of human rights and opposes it to God's call to service and sacrifice.
I have heard this flawed argument many times before and see nothing new here. To me it offers the same false polarities it starts by criticizing. This approach spiritualizes reality to such a degree that it simply does not address the complexity of 21st political and economic reality. Nor is the statement about the "community" of 1st century Jews in the Roman empire reflective of the realities of that time.
What purpose can this possibly serve to address real injustice or legitimate legal and social protection from criminal or other unrighteous behavior? What is Jones' alternative to the ideals of constitutional self government, citizenship rights and a shared commonwealth?
Community? What does he mean by this?
The early Christian community in which the NT was written was complex and diverse, but for the most part it was sharply divided between the haves and have-nots. The fabulously wealthy Romans and their collaborators who drove thousands of peasant farmers off their land, and lined the roads with crucified dissidents were on one side and the occupied peoples, taxed to destitution, many living as outcasts due to religious purity codes were on the other. There was little middle ground and because of this there were frequent popular uprisings involving tens of thousands of Jews. Does he really want to return to this state of community?
I am not at all one who idealizes modern individualism, or the magic marketplace of self interest. I think communitarian Christianity represents a great model of the Kingdom message. I once lived for a decade in a community dedicated to recovering 1st century Christianity and sharing our goods in common. We didn't survive some of the problems that emerged, but it was a profoundly enriching experiment. One of the failures of our community was intellectual. We did not engage the intellectual questions and issues of our time except with overspiritualized answers that failed when the trials came.
In my opinion contrasting spiritual principles like the Biblical injunctions to treat all with respect, to do unto others, to see all as made in God's image with secular/ legal expressions of those principles- in this case human/ citizenship rights- and by this comparison then giving the Biblical version a holy aura of superiority is unproductive and unrealistic. No earthly community has fully realized these spiritual principles. But their practical inclusion in law, tradition and attitude have made life better for millions while taking nothing away from the spiritual ideas that inspire and inform them. Though I sometimes hear something akin to the "it's all about me and my rights" philosophy, I think the concept of human rights is much more complex and includes substantial theological support. Each of the last 7 commandment can be seen as delineating human rights.
I respect what Tony is doing but I have little sympathy for the ideas of this article. Spirituality is useless if it is not incarnated in our flawed world. In a fallen world we need freedom marches, women's suffrage, due process as well as the love and grace that are the source and transcendent goal of human rights.
Posted by: jonabark | February 18, 2008 7:07 PM
And for the conservative folk reading this thread let me include property rights to my list . No rights are absolute and it is a limited concept, but for a a radical reformist I am still conservative enough to think we should stay with the good sound principles we have until we have something better.
Posted by: jonabark | February 18, 2008 7:24 PM
Thankyou for the thoughtful responses---which I do not feel up to matching.
Let me just add to the comments about how our principles/theologies/theories bump up against the 'real world'--
Is this not the job of 'wisdom?'
Wisdom is the product of walking out the 'truth in love' the best we know. It provides the boundaries for appeals to individual rights or the common good.
Principles are not disproven by carrying them to their extreme conclusion. We do not have to pit individual rights versus the common good and see how far we can push each principle against the opposing point. Is not this the kind of poloriized script he decries??
Rather we can uphold them as mutually beneficial values which we uphold in many matters and apply with wisdom.
And I'm not sure the Emergent connection to this critique bears much merit.
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | February 18, 2008 8:06 PM
Interesting article. I don't mean to complain about the Beliefnet or GP tech here, but it's really frustrating that an ad for Regent University keeps falling over the article when I (and presumably others) are trying to read. Why on earth would Beliefnet allow that? Not only that, it's an ad for Pat Robertson's university! And then at the bottom is a banner for Liberty University, founded by Falwell. What's going on? Right-wing conspiracy? Anyone else having this trouble?
Posted by: I and I | February 18, 2008 10:22 PM
"Why on earth would Beliefnet allow that? Not only that, it's an ad for Pat Robertson's university!"
--Didn't catch that...I guess my attention was drawn to the pro-gay documentary they were pushing in one of the other ad banners. My guess is Sojo has no control over the ads and Beliefnet has to pay their bills somehow.
Posted by: jesse | February 18, 2008 11:05 PM
I am a bit irritated that you so called modern progressive christians only talk about politics to change the world. There is a lot more going on...
http://www.antenna.nl/anaisnin/theologyaftercydonia.htm
Posted by: henk | February 19, 2008 7:15 AM
'...it ignores what we all know to be true: each one of us is a complex mélange of viewpoints and opinions, and very few of us line up with every plank...'
Not on this site. Wallis and many of the authors on this site have labeled the avg. conservative as a two issue person - gay marriage/rights and abortion. I have said that many of us are more complex than that but that is what is going on in the courts so we are more vocal on these issues. All of us are more complex than Wallis - Sojo and others believe.
Jesse "The Body" Ventura was a joke in my book. I believe that he was a C+ mayor - he did a lot of good for my little area of the metro area - Brooklyn Park. (yes - the folks in Edina believe that it is the 'hood'...those 'cake-eaters' also believe that the sun circles around them too) He mobilized the disenfranchized of MN - but once he got into the Gov. Mansion - he dis'd his own party and appointed mostly DFL people in to office. The Body is more DFL-Lite than independant and a D Govenor.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | February 19, 2008 9:28 AM
I've been thinking about the claim that it is rampant consumerism that causes the average American adult to be deeply in debt, and I'm dubious, to say the least. I suspect it is more likely to be things like sudden, crushing medical expenses that are inadequately covered by insurance, or lagging wage to cost of living indexing, which causes people to have to charge groceries to get through the month because their paycheck no longer suffices to pay for food once the utilities and medical copays have been taken care of. And that's assuming that you have medical insurance and don't lose your job.
Seriously, this is why people I know are in debt and facing possible bankruptcy. Self-control, forgiveness and reconciliation are a start, but...
Posted by: Another nonymous | February 19, 2008 10:05 AM
Posted by: Another nonymous | February 19, 2008 10:05 AM
You might be correct in your acessment to a degree. I know that people make poor choices all the time that causes them to go into debt or to not have the material / supplied to support them or their families. One of my favorite stories from a letter carrier friend of mine, and this happens more often than you would like to think. He happened to strike up a conversation with a women who seemed upset. The reason she was upset was that they did not have a crib for her new baby to sleep in. My friend - kind soul that he 'was' thought about how his church could come along side to assist them. He had a lot of companies that he delivered to that could chip in to get this baby a crib. Out of concern for the child he asked what they were using as a bed for the infant. Her answer was the box the color TV came in. As bad as he felt about the child and the lack of a crib - they were making decisions and he was not going to enable them to continue making poor decisions. There are more Lincoln Navigator type SUV's sitting in the parking lot of a large apt. complex in my community that has about 65 to 70% state assistance than in the driveways of the neighborhood about a mile north of me where the homes start selling at $450,000.00 or more. People are making decisions.
Blessings -
.
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | February 19, 2008 11:42 AM
Moderatelad -
I'm sure you're right. I've driven through through rural Appalachia and seen Cadillacs parked in front of tarpaper shacks, so I know what you're talking about. (In the days before cable TV, many also had large TV aerials, which no doubt accounts for the temptation to buy the Cadillacs.) I'm willing to concede that this kind of thing accounts for a certain portion of bad debt and bankruptcy filings. The rest, though, is due to things that are beyond the control of individuals. This is not an either/or; it's a both/and, which is why I don't think we're well served by reducing it to a personal responsibility issue. It is one, but it's also bigger than that.
Posted by: Another nonymous | February 19, 2008 11:56 AM
I had posted some similar thoughts on Christianity and individualism on my blog.
Regarding Tony's post, I think the idea that "individual rights is not a biblical-theological virture" is a little extreme. Individual rights in and of themselves are not a problem. Perhaps it would be better to replace "individual rights" with "consumerism."
And since we're taking arguments from Roman Catholicism how about Pope Leo XIII's Rerum Novarum which led to the idea of one's right to pursue their own self-perfection? Maybe we can move beyond the idea of thinking in terms of ourselves (even sacrificially) and focus on the individual rights of "the other?"
Now somebody remind me what this has to do with partisan politics.
Posted by: Scott Lenger | February 19, 2008 12:58 PM
Hmm.
Just who is loaning the money at usurious rates (30% APR) to poor people so that they can devote 100% of their incomes to making interest payments on those Lincoln Navigators?
If they were doing it with their own cash, it wouldn't be possible.
No doubt, as scripture states, evil will come into the world, but woe to those who cause others to stumble. Better for those who know better but enslave the naive not to have been born at all, but to be cast away with millstones around their necks.
These anecdotal "proofs" of the welfare cadillac queen syndrome are just the sorts of largely untrue urban myths proferred up that some people want to believe so badly in.
But let's have some proof, not cornpone libertarian homilies, regardless of how entertaining they might be.
As Will Rogers put it, "It's no crime to be poor, but it might as well be."
To the moderately materially "blessed" who offer their "blessings" but walk away without offering anything else, poverty is dismissed as simply a moral failing, confined soley to those so oppressed..
This isn't Biblical, it's derived from the cult of materialism, which in our own era by presidential exhortation orders us to "keep shopping" as our moral and patriotic duty, and make our sacrifice "for the troops" by consuming and by debt.
Obviously, using this line of reasoning, anyone who can't do their patriotic and moral duty is a laggard, a failure and a reprobate. What a crime it is to find your credit maxxed out! But don't worry, help is on the way, as government finds ways to keep increasing debt personally and corporately. Don't you know that's their patriotic duty!
Posted by: Sojourner Truth | February 19, 2008 1:18 PM
I have driven many, many times through West Virgina and Appalachia, through all the winding roads off I-77 and I-79, Beckley, Summersville, Clarksburg and environs and further afield.
Let me tell you, it's a lie to accuse these people of living high and squandering their money on welfare cadillacs. (Cadillac itself is on welfare these days.)
There are vehicles parked before shacks that are older than anything you can find in automobile wrecking yards. Forties-era pickup trucks, cars that would be collectors' items elsewhere if they weren't the models no one had wanted back then.
Why don't you drive through Camp Creek or Coal City sometime and look at the state of the buildings?
This is an area that ought to be an advertisement for capitalist development, since the roads, schools, homes and businesses - entire towns - were owned by the companies who largely employed these people. It's no joke to say that no matter how hard you worked, you ended up owing it all to the company store.
Watch the movie "Matewan" if you'd like a picture of how it was.
Posted by: N.M. Rod | February 19, 2008 1:34 PM
N.M. and Sojourner -
OK; I was trying to concede a point for dialogue, not perpetuate the "welfare queen" myth. I've been to Coal City, and similar places, and of course you're right. And I would certainly never accuse those people of living high, even if there is a Cadillac in the driveway. I doubt if the people whose baby was sleeping in the TV box were living high either.
In fact, to take the point further, those TV aerials I mentioned were bringing in programming like "The Beverly Hillbillies," which taught everybody in Appalachia to be ashamed of their culture, because the rest of the country was laughing at them. So any way you look at it, it's a cultural issue, not just one of individual responsibility.
What I really want to see is whether, now that I've explained that I understand one of the conservatives' big talking points, and even to some extent sympathize, somebody will reciprocate.
Posted by: Another nonymous | February 19, 2008 2:23 PM
PS -
Apologies for being so transparent about my subtext. I really am trying to dialogue here, in light of the recent house cleaning.
Posted by: Another nonymous | February 19, 2008 2:48 PM
Yes, some people make bad decisions. But that does not mean all people who are struggling have made bad decisions. This is simple logic. Yet the myth of the welfare queen has been perpetuated for decades as a reason to oppose government help for those in need. Every conservative seems to have a neighbor or second-cousin who lived on welfare and ate caviar and chocolate mousse every night. It never fails.
Posted by: I and I | February 19, 2008 3:10 PM
Trusting in government to fix injustice (liberals)= idolatry
Better= government has a role to play as both a steward of the "common good" and the "individual"
Trusting in the magic of the market (conservatives)= idolatry
Better= businesses, at their best, both serve and make a profit
Thinking that we own anything (including bodies, houses, land)= idolatry
Better= we are stewards of the planet, our bodies, our homes, our relationships, the land
Demanding entitlements= idolatry
Better= rather than looking to others to take care of you, we look to the best interests of our neighbors
Blaming poverty on the poor= I am not my brother's keeper
Better= rather than making excuses for greed that leads to murder, we work to improve, protect and maintain our neighbor's property and means of making a living
Individual rights= idolatry
Better= each person has priceless value in the sight of God
Trusting in a particular religious candidate to be the Messiah= idolatry
Better= as Martin Luther says, "I'd rather be ruled by a competent Turk, that an incompetent Christian."
What I see in the work of Emergent and Sojo= an attempt to overcome these idolatries and false polarities
Peace, Duh-sciple
Posted by: Duh-sciple | February 19, 2008 3:17 PM
Correction: in my last post I meant to say that trusting any particular POLITICAL candidate to be the Messiah is idolatrous.
And... in the current situation... we pray for our current president, for wisdom, while also holding him accountable. We live in a tension between Revelation 13 and Romans 13.
Thanks, Duh-sciple
Posted by: Duh-sciple | February 19, 2008 3:30 PM
It seems to me that we have to think in terms of a a bigger picture. Why is there so much encouragement to buy stuff? Indeed, why does this president suggest it's our patriotic duty to go shopping? Well, it seems that the American economy is dependent on our consumption. If we stop buying things, the economy tanks. That's why the government and banks made it easy for subprime loans to be made--so people who had so little would have money to spend. That's why buying a colour TV (costs lots) instead of a crib (costs less) is a patriotic act--it helps to sustain the American economy.
And why is this so? I believe that it's so because the government has spent trillions on war and the U.S. owes bazillions (I don't know the exact number) to many other countries, esp. China. We are vulnerable to a recession or a depression or whatever the correct term is because the costs of war have eaten up the surplus that used to exist AND depleted the national bank account.
Just because Mr. Bush and his fellow politicians used religious terminology when they were running for office is no reason to assume that Christian theology has informed their decision-making.
Posted by: bren | February 19, 2008 3:46 PM
You know, the Beverly Hillbillies made the pandering-to-the-wealthy banker Drysdale and his 90291 hoi-polloi look like the phonies and deprived, not Jed and his kinfolk, who just treated everybody like plain folks back home and refused to get the point they were being looked down on and being sucked up to at the same time!
If only there hadn't been that awful automatic laugh track
canned laughter, another questionable invention of our times!
Posted by: Sojourner Truth | February 19, 2008 5:57 PM
Well, it seems to me Jed and his kinfolk were being held up as rather stupid and ignorant, and the canned laugh track was inviting us to laugh at them. I know that's how many people took it.
Anyway, it looks like my invitation to dialogue isn't getting anywhere. Instead I'm being attacked on the left flank and ignored on the right. Hint — A response might look something like this:
"I see you acknowledge that at least some people could be doing more to lift themselves out of poverty. You know, I have to admit that sometimes the government can help too."
Any takers? It gets lonely here in the middle.
Posted by: Another nonymous | February 19, 2008 11:16 PM
Posted by: Sojourner Truth | February 19, 2008 1:18 PM
'...moderately materially "blessed" who offer their "blessings" but walk away without offering anything...'
Cute -
If you are in fact talking about me - I have offered ideas in the past but they have for the most part been ignored. Yes - I understand that I am my brothers and sisters keeper. But several of them want me to be their caretaker - I can't.
I have assisted several organizations that work with people at risk to train them so that they can get a job. We win a few - we loose a lot.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | February 20, 2008 8:16 AM
Another: "Instead I'm being attacked on the left flank..."
Hope you didn't take my observation as an attack; I wasn't referring to you (esp. after your 2/19 2:23 comment) or anyone else who has posted on this thread, just lamenting the fact that the same old welfare-queen arguments have been used ad nauseum ever since I can remember.
Posted by: I and I | February 20, 2008 11:03 AM
There's a growing sense among emergents that the polarization in U.S. politics isn't real -— it's a script written by the two political parties and the U.S. media. They wrote this script and they perpetuate it because they have the most to gain from its perpetuation. The unnuanced maps showing states as "red" or "blue" disregards the fact that in a red state, as many as 49 percent of the voters are blue, and vice versa.
Sorry, but this isn't entirely true, especially in the deep-red South, which except for Florida has been Republican-dominated since Reagan's presidency; only African-Americans and many Latinos in that region of the country regularly vote Democratic. The same can also be said for the Rocky Mountain region. On the other hand, the Northeast and West Coast really are blue in orientation. Only the Midwest has a preponderance of swing states, as is Pennsylvania (where I live).
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | February 20, 2008 11:19 AM
Posted by: I and I | February 20, 2008 11:03 AM
"Hope you didn't take my observation as an attack; I wasn't referring to you (esp. after your 2/19 2:23 comment) or anyone else who has posted on this thread, just lamenting the fact that the same old welfare-queen arguments have been used ad nauseum ever since I can remember."
No offense taken. I'm just tired of seeing the same point and counterpoint being argued over and over again. When I post evidence of how government programs have contributed positively to our economy, as I did earlier on this thread, I get ignored, only to see the same "government intervention leads inevitably to mass executions" argument, and similar things, brought up on new threads, which surface faster than anybody can possibly assimilate them all. I'm thinking seriously of taking an extended break from posting to this blog.
Posted by: Another nonymous | February 20, 2008 12:55 PM
"I'm just tired of seeing the same point and counterpoint being argued over and over again.When I post evidence of how government programs have contributed positively to our economy, as I did earlier on this thread, I get ignored, only to see the same "government intervention leads inevitably to mass executions" argument, and similar things, brought up on new threads, which surface faster than anybody can possibly assimilate them all."
I understand. I'm tired of it, too. I think part of the problem is that some folks think that if tax money pays for a program, that program has to work absolutely perfectly, with no unexpected side effects, so they are quick to shout that "wlefare produces dependency" wihtout listening to us provide evidence that for most recipinets this is not true. And others are so set in their religion of libertarianism that they claim that churches should provide health care coverage and rental vouchers and food assistance, month after month, as if that could actually be done. So we never get very far in these dicussions because we have to try to reason with the same damn libertarian arguments over and over again.
Posted by: I and I | February 20, 2008 2:13 PM
I and I -
That's pretty much it. Actually, I think there are fairly conscientious libertarians, who really do believe the church can provide health care and rental vouchers if the government will just get out of the way, and there are more casual libertarians who just think that salvation is a personal business and everything we discuss here is off topic. I have a lot of respect for the former, even though I disagree with them. The latter, I fear, are simply misreading the Gospel, and extracting from it something close to the opposite of what it contains.
Posted by: Another nonymous | February 20, 2008 4:12 PM
"Emergents don't have a problem with Lockean individual rights per se - their problem is with the fact that unalienable, individual rights is not a biblical-theological virtue."
I wholeheartedly disagree with your assessment of inalienable rights. Is it true that Christianity calls men and women to be self-sacrificial? Absolutely. However, Locke's ideas for inalienable rights likely came from reformation theology and (at least according to Francis Schaeffer) Samuel Rutherford's work "Lex Rex," which was also rooted in biblical theology. in fact, the truth of a Creator God (i.e. biblical truth) is the only possible foundation for maintaining certain standards of ethical treatment for human beings. the bible ascribes value and dignity to all of humanity because they are created in the image of God, thus they should treated according to this fact. they have INHERENT value, which i argue would translate into certain inalienable rights. the problem is not with inalienable rights as such, but that certain people have taken liberties and extended the term "rights" to things that are in fact not rights - such as owning an ipod.
Posted by: D C | February 21, 2008 11:41 PM
To the "concerned Christian" who noted that Tony has endorsed Barack Obama on his personal blog and asked, "Does this mean that Emergent Village = support for Obama?"
As someone who is part of the National Coordinating Group of Emergent Village, I can say with confidence that the answer is No. When Tony posts something like that on his personal website, that is a personal view, and he does speak for everyone in the Emergent network/community. Nor can he speak for everyone, just as Pat Robertson cannot speak for all evangelicals or T.D. Jakes speak for all black Pentecostals.
This is not to say that his personal endorsement has no merit or weight. Of course, it does, but Tony has also been very vocal in the past about his voting record, including votes for Republicans and independents (like Jesse Ventura, who Tony helped elect governor of Minnesota ;-) So please don't assume because he is backing Barack Obama that this means he's now a diehard Democrat. That would really be failing to see the complexity and nuance that's going on here in what he's trying to present, a description of a new "third way" that really resonates with many of us.
Posted by: Steve K. | February 28, 2008 10:16 AM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?