What Do You Mean by Politics? (Part 1 of 2 by Brian McLaren)
A recent New York Times story, "Taking Their Faith, but Not Their Politics, to the People," highlights the challenge faced by followers of Christ who seek to integrate their faith with all aspects of life, including political life in a democracy. The article suggests to me a question that we should raise more frequently when people address "faith and politics," or "faith versus politics," namely: "What do you mean by politics?"
The article begins and ends by recounting a mini-culture war going on in Missouri. It may be no surprise that the conflict involves Southern Baptists, who are known for their willingness to plunge headlong into battle for what they believe is right (in both senses of the word). What's surprising, though, is that the battle isn't between Baptists and secular-humanist-postmodernist-liberal-heathens outside, but rather with fellow Baptists.
It turns out that some members of a SBC-affiliated new congregation called the Journey gather on occasion to discuss theology and life with their unchurched friends in (gasp) a pub. Some fellow Baptists see this as the first step on a slippery slope that may lead to alcoholism, drug addiction, fornication, and (I'm partially joking here) maybe even Democratic and Obama-voting tendencies, so they have agreed not to fund new churches like the Journey in the future.
The article mentions another fissure in the SBC structure. This one pits a 25-year-old graduate of Liberty University - and son of a former SBC president - against Richard Land, SBC giant in public affairs. This David-Goliath conflict concerns not beer but the environment, and whether Southern Baptists have been too timid in addressing environmental issues. Jonathan Merritt, starring as David, took a stand on behalf of the planet and has drawn about 250 others (and counting) to stand with him. Land, seemingly convinced that environmental regulations are presently a greater threat to humanity than environmental degradation, has criticized Merritt and friends, and has in fact persuaded some of the original signors to un-sign.
Dean Inserra, 27-year-old pastor of the Well in Tallahassee, Florida - another SBC church more in the tradition of David than Goliath - offers his assessment of the tension: "There is so much resistance to the environmental initiative because it is a threat to the right-wing agenda that has crept into the Southern Baptist Convention." Then he raises this question: "How is taking care of God's creation a political issue? Since I am pro-life, I am pro-environment."
Inserra's comment, along with others in the Times article, shows how the word "political" is used in different ways. The article's description of "a new generation that refuses to put politics at the center of its faith and rejects identification with the religious right" similarly shows the ambiguity of the word "politics." Consider the previous statement in light of what follows:
They say they are tired of the culture wars. They say they do not want the test of their faith to be the fight against gay rights. They say they want to broaden the traditional evangelical anti-abortion agenda to include care for the poor, the environment, immigrants and people with H.I.V., according to experts on younger evangelicals and the young people themselves.
In this light, "politics" means culture wars, litmus tests, anti-gay rights, narrow agendas. Is that a good definition? If we define politics more intentionally - as how groups of people organize and govern themselves - then the NYT article is mistitled and its repeated pitting of faith versus politics obscures the issue.
Brian McLaren also blogs at brianmclaren.net and serves as board chair for Sojourners. He is an author and speaker (deepshift.org). His most recent books include Everything Must Change (2007) and Finding Our Way Again (2008).
Add to:
Category: Churches, Elections, Evangelicals, Faith and Politics, Religious Right
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
Politics definitely should be defined more broadly than "culture wars, litmus tests, anti-gay rights, narrow agendas" etc. The issues about which Christians should be concerned should be broader than about what the old Falwell/Robertson axis would have us care. When it comes to politics Christians should also be wary about making statements declaring that only a true Christian would support a particular policy solution.
Posted by: Eric | June 4, 2008 2:27 PM
Brian McLaren wrote:
It turns out that some members of a SBC-affiliated new congregation called the Journey gather on occasion to discuss theology and life with their unchurched friends in (gasp) a pub. Some fellow Baptists see this as the first step on a slippery slope that may lead to alcoholism, drug addiction, fornication, and (I'm partially joking here) maybe even Democratic and Obama-voting tendencies, so they have agreed not to fund new churches like the Journey in the future.
You forgot to mention dancing, Brian. Nothing scares traditionalist Baptists more than the prospect of dancing, especially to that evil rock-and-roll music. Even the spectre of an Obama administration pales in comparison to that.
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | June 4, 2008 3:16 PM
The SBC's theology as it relates to drinking is absurd, but this mini-series would shed more light on the discussion if it weren't framed in David v. Goliath terms.
Also, it is untenable to simultaneously accuse the SBC of confining their political interests to gay marriage while criticizing their viewpoint on environmental regulations. You can argue that they are wrong on both issues, or you can argue that they ignore one issue. You cannot argue both.
Posted by: kevin s. | June 4, 2008 4:02 PM
Perhaps the strangest thing about all of this is that the SBC has so many good things going to connect with people, but they all get pushed behind the political unction of the fundamentalists who have wrested control of the convention. We are better known for our Republican love-triangle than our love? How sad is that?
More reason why our younger generation is leaving the convention in droves.
You are the Church!
R.A.
Posted by: Robert Angison | June 4, 2008 4:20 PM
Duh. He isn't arguing the SBC's positions either way. He's arguing that the NYT has a view of what "politics" means that doesn't help--only obscures--what is actually happening. In fact, his suggestion about how to define politics right at the end wouldn't exclude the SBC at all.
You can argue Brian is wrong on both issues--environment and homosexuality--or you can argue that he is wrong on one. But you can't argue with a strawman of your own creation without getting called on it.
Posted by: Matt W. | June 4, 2008 4:33 PM
Wolverine: "You forgot to mention dancing, Brian. Nothing scares traditionalist Baptists more than the prospect of dancing, especially to that evil rock-and-roll music. Even the spectre of an Obama administration pales in comparison to that."
Wolverine, you forgot to mention card playing.
kevin s: "Also, it is untenable to simultaneously accuse the SBC of confining their political interests to gay marriage while criticizing their viewpoint on environmental regulations. You can argue that they are wrong on both issues, or you can argue that they ignore one issue. You cannot argue both."
But of course McLaren argued neither in this piece.
Posted by: carl copas | June 4, 2008 5:28 PM
"Duh. He isn't arguing the SBC's positions either way."
His snarky comments rather clearly reveal his bias w/r/t drinking (hence the parenthetical gasp), the environment, conservative politics generally ("plunging headlong" certainly has connotations) and gay rights.
"But you can't argue with a strawman of your own creation without getting called on it."
McLaren spends quite a bit of time asserting he has no horse in the political race, bot providing every evidence to the contrary. This is not a strawman argument, and I am not the first (or even the 1001st) to call him on it.
Posted by: kevin s. | June 4, 2008 5:31 PM
His snarky comments rather clearly reveal his bias w/r/t drinking (hence the parenthetical gasp), the environment, conservative politics generally ("plunging headlong" certainly has connotations) and gay rights.
If you understood the Baptist mentality you would understand that it was anything but "biased." Baptists, especially in the South, are notorious for near-maniacal obsession with "personal morality" (hey, listen to Charles Stanley once in a while, as I do regularly, and you'll know what I mean).
McLaren spends quite a bit of time asserting he has no horse in the political race, bot providing every evidence to the contrary.
Just because he doesn't overtly support your horse doesn't necessarily mean he supports its opponent. Not all non-conservatives are true liberals, y'know.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | June 4, 2008 6:02 PM
Carl, thanks for reminding me about card playing. That all goes to a common point about the "Journey"* story though: there are plenty of cultural issues at play here. McLaren reads in a political meaning that may or may not have anything to do with politics -- the congregation just might not be comfortable with having church-related events at a bar.
As far as Land and his concern that "environmental regulations are presently a greater threat to humanity than environmental degradation", well, that's not a simple binary thing that can be dismissed casually; a lot depends on the degree of environmental degradation and the severity of the regulations. One need not be a devil-take-the-hindmost libertarian to acknowledge that badly drafted regulations could do a lot of harm.
Finally, McLaren quotes one Dean Inserra, who asks: "How is taking care of God's creation a political issue?" The short answer -- and McLaren ought to know this by now -- is it became a political issue the instant that government got involved in it.
McLaren has a point when he says that the work "political" gets used in different ways. But at bottom, I suspect that the real bone of contention is still the differing roles that conservatives and liberals assign to the state.
Wolverine
*Insert "Don't Stop Believing" joke here.
Posted by: Wolverine | June 4, 2008 6:27 PM
"Snarky" is someone who continually snipes at another in lieu of engaging with the substance of that person's argument. Should I write you off because you said the SBC's policy on drinking was "absurd"? If I don't believe in drinking, should that bias carry forward into every subsequent post you write so that I can simply write off whatever you say? Further, that you had to cite "plunge headlong" as some sort of sinister commentary is perfect evidence you didn't even bother to engage with the substance of what Brian was talking about. In fact, it's evidence that you are operating from a "hate anyone who speaks here" approach which is, quite frankly, ontologically "snarky."
But you already know that.
Brian's point, if you need the cliff notes, is that the media narrative on religion in the political sphere seems to employ the term "politics" around only right-wing concerns. Think about that for more than 60 seconds and you will realize that he is setting the groundwork for rebuttals to those who would refuse religiously minded folks from engaging in the public sphere. Read his books and you will see he very much believes the gospel is political in its nature. He's trying to reclaim the term "politics" from the larger media framework--and rightly so. (Yes, which also makes Wolverine's snark look foolish. Equating "government activity" with "politics" is astonishingly wrong, an assumption that has allowed those in power to domesticate Jesus in their myriad of theologies for centuries.)
There's a second installment coming. I would stay tuned.
Posted by: Matt W. | June 4, 2008 7:22 PM
There's an old joke that goes:
Do you know what happens when you get three SBC's together? 1/3 splits and forms a new church. 1/3 stays where he is and 1/3 get mad and stay at home. (or gets Sanctified and becomes a Pentecostal)
Posted by: Paul | June 4, 2008 8:02 PM
""Snarky" is someone who continually snipes at another in lieu of engaging with the substance of that person's argument."
How is it unreasonable to suggest that he is doing precisely this w/r/t the SBC?
"Should I write you off because you said the SBC's policy on drinking was "absurd"?"
That's probably a fair point. What I was trying to say is that, while I agree that the SBC carries with it some theological excesses, an analysis of how we define politics could do without the putdowns of the SBC.
"Further, that you had to cite "plunge headlong" as some sort of sinister commentary"
I didn't say it was sinister. I said it revealed biases. The term insinuates that the SBC is intemperate.
"In fact, it's evidence that you are operating from a "hate anyone who speaks here" approach"
Um, no.
"Brian's point, if you need the cliff notes,"
I am aware of Brian's point. What I said was that incorporating David v. Goliath (with those who do not share his political views conveniently occupying the latter role) is a poor way of making it.
"Read his books and you will see he very much believes the gospel is political in its nature."
I have read his books, and I know that he believes the gospel is politically (Democratic) in nature.
"Equating "government activity" with "politics" is astonishingly wrong,"
How so?
Posted by: kevin s. | June 4, 2008 8:20 PM
McLaren's use of the David/Goliath analogy is unfortunate (conservative SBC churches are "Goliaths"? think about that one...), as is his refusal to engage with critics of certain environmental regulations. You'd think that someone so interested in the "conversation" would show a little more open-mindedness and respect towards those with whom he disagrees. Though the tactic of "Beyondists" like McLaren, Wallis, and (yes) Obama is to set the terms of the conversation from the start: there are good sound-thinking people, and then there conservatives and those holding conservative/heartless opinions. I never see any serious engagement with conservative ideas here...
Posted by: jesse | June 4, 2008 8:23 PM
"Since I am pro-life, I am pro-environment."
I've long said true pro-life means besides the negative, opposition to abortion, the positive: generous pre- and post-natal care, nutrition, clothing, housing, and education for all our children, the little ones.
Brother Inserra has taken pro-life the next logical step. Bully on him!
It seems the Religious Right has lost its coherence, while we have not– Pace, Jim Wallis– created a countervailing Religious Left entity, hypocritical secular politicians on the Left exploiting vulnerable wise-as-doves-innocent-as-serpents believers. Thanks be to God!
Posted by: Ted Voth Jr | June 4, 2008 10:06 PM
It is interesting that the SBC is loosing a greater percentage of their members than any other denomination. Could blindsided ness have anything to do with it?
Posted by: PJ | June 4, 2008 10:10 PM
PJ - what are they loosing them to do?
Posted by: canucklehead | June 4, 2008 10:31 PM
Matt W:
I wasn't equating government with politics, merely noting that the two tend to go together. Once government intervenes in something, it won't be long before the political intrigue starts. You can call that a snark if you want, but can you tell me where I'm wrong?
PJ:
In terms of losing members, the Southern Baptist Convention has nothing on the oh-so-liberal Episcopal church.
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | June 4, 2008 11:15 PM
Canucklehead: A loose Baptist. Whoa!
Pastor Jeff
Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | June 4, 2008 11:18 PM
Hooray for us! Boo for them! They're all a bunch of dummies because they think they're better than everyone else...when we know we are better than anybody else!
I hate people who think everyone should be like them... why can't those people be more like us?
(Type your contradiction here)
... I think I once heard someone say "they will know we are Christians by our love"
Posted by: Brendan | June 5, 2008 1:21 AM
I'm an English instructor, and I read "loose/loosing" for "lose/losing" in student papers all the time.
For some reason, errors like that seem to run in streaks. Sometimes it's enough to make an instructor like me loose his mind!
:-)
D
Posted by: Don | June 5, 2008 6:57 AM
Though the tactic of "Beyondists" like McLaren, Wallis, and (yes) Obama is to set the terms of the conversation from the start: there are good sound-thinking people, and then there conservatives and those holding conservative/heartless opinions. I never see any serious engagement with conservative ideas here...
Two reasons for that. One, conservatives to this day as a rule have never engaged in serious engagement with anyone else, so even if anyone were to try to do so he/she would be lambasted for not toeing their party line. Two, a majority of Americans now understand that conservative ideas for the most part just don't work; if they did this blog wouldn't even exist and the Democrat Party would be nowhere today. Thus, the "right" is becoming irrelevant.
It is interesting that the SBC is loosing a greater percentage of their members than any other denomination. Could blindsided ness have anything to do with it?
Not necessarily. Some of that may have to do with housecleaning (that is, removing the names of long-inactive members); it may also have to do with entire churches leaving because, after all, it's a pretty loose confederation where real authority rests in the local congregations, which can affiliate and disaffiliate at their leisure. (Thomas Road Church, pastored by Jerry Falwell, wouldn't join for many years because he saw it as too liberal.)
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | June 5, 2008 10:35 AM
"it became a political issue the instant that government got involved in it."
It's tough to reconcile your reasoning now, Wolv, with what you actually said. But I will give you the benefit of the doubt and simply take the time to further elaborate on my criticism.
Domestication of theology happens when a religion is able to get close to power structures--government or otherwise. Calvinism and Roman Catholicism in Europe, for instance. But also in the gender structures of society. Patriarchy (male-centered power) is just as guilty of domesticating theology to benefit itself. This is also politics. It's the game of playing with meaning for advantage, for position. It involves both official structures of power and unofficial, i.e.: those "invisible" structures which guide assumptions about the world and the way social structures work and their "inevitability". Theology is powerful in the construction of inevitability because it appeals to the ultimate ground: God. This is political at its nature--and my employment of the term is miles away from the NYT's usage. So I side with Brian.
Such theology keeps us from understanding Jesus' political maneuverings: against the power structures of the temple, against the power structures of ethnicity, privilege, gender and yes, empire. "Jesus never challenged Rome!" I have heard so often from those who innocently believe it but also from those who would prefer that Jesus stay sequestered from that sphere. And sometimes the innocence and the preference are bound together deeply (giving us ears which cannot hear, eyes which cannot see). Domesticated theology keeps us from not only understanding this side of Jesus--domesticated theology keeps us from even seeing it. Therefore I define politics with Brian: "the way people organize and govern themselves" but I emphasize that this includes "non-official" forms such as the social structures inherent in social relations.
I hope that clarifies what I mean.
Posted by: Matt W. | June 5, 2008 3:06 PM
The SBC is actually a pretty diverse organization. Definitely in terms of ethnicity and national origin - more African-Americans are in SBC than any other denomination, they have huge numbers of churches for people of other languages, etc. But also politically, and this is partly related to the other form of diversity, since the hard right approach tends not to appeal to very many non-whites.
My wife belongs to a Korean mega-church affiliated with SBC (but which no longer has Baptist in its name). Her complaints about it being political deal with the assumption that everyone in the church is a Democrat, and Democratic politicians showing up at the church and being recognized favorably. She thinks the church should not appear to be partisan.
But this is not exactly the general public image of the SBC. I don't know how many SBC churches carry this Democratic orientation, but it's probably far more than most people outside the SBC would guess.
Posted by: Bill Samuel | June 5, 2008 10:14 PM
"There's an old joke that goes:"
Well, okay, since you told an old one so will I. Why don't Baptists make love standing up? Because they might be tempted to start dancing.
Posted by: I and I | June 8, 2008 1:20 AM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?