In chp 4 of A. Greeley and M. Hout's The Truth about Conservative Christians [CCs] the authors explore the statistics about the difference between African Americans and white Conservative Protestants (CPs). Listen to this conclusion:
"There may be a link between CC religious convictions and political behavior but it is modest, even by social science standards" (69). Now what this conclusion -- and we'll get into this below -- is suggesting is that the reason for CCs (white) being Republican may not be attributable to theological convictions but to other factors.
Now the incisive point of this chp, calling into question whether or not it is theology that shapes the evangelical (white) political leaning: "Any attempt to forge a link of logical or doctrinal consistency between cons rel belief and cons politcs falters when one considers African American CCs" (69). Why? Religious African Americans are the most liberal political voting block in the USA.
52% of lower-income, white, CPs vote Democrat; 90% lower-income, AfrAm Prots vote Democrat. Race reshapes the link between CC and cons politics.
Is the white proclivity for cons politics "a protest against their perceived loss of political power, a protest only marginally linked to their religious convictions?" (71).
Conclusion: "Literal interpretation of the Bible and frequent religious practice push AfrAms toward the Democrats and whites toward the Republicans" (72). Read that twice and think about it. It boggles.
Now here it is put even more potently: "the Gospel [sic, gospel] does correlate with political orientation: the direction of correlation depends on believers' social contexts, which in this case mans their differing racial ancestries" (72). Is this suggesting that folks vote on the basis of income/economic status, regardless of their faith, or that their faith supports their perceived income needs, or that one of these groups is consistent and the other one not?
Now they point fingers: "Liberals who decry the militant political stands of CPs should beware of trying to have it both ways when they turn around to praise the militant stands of Afro-American Prots" (74).
What haunted my mind as I read this chp? Do we simply use our theology to prop up our economic status or economic desires? Are many white CCs simply finding passages that justify their economic status of wealth and are AfrAms simply finding passages that justify their desire to rise in the economic world? This chp makes me go back to the Bible -- "What does it say?," I kept asking myself. Well, I justify myself, it says what I think it does -- but does that mean "it says what my context wants me to see?" Lord have mercy.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
I am more than half way through the book now and I have a post for my blog formulating in my mind based on the book and this discussion. To borrow from McLaren, we ask "What story do I find myself in?" The Bible contains a narrative with many sub-narratives. Liberal and conservative Christians, still heavily under the influence of Modernism, do not approach the scripture narratively. What narrative work they do engage in usually consists of latching on to those sub-narratives that most resonate with the story the find themselves in rather than bring their story to THE story and having it reshaped by the narrative and its author. Thus, CP African-Americans buy heavily into the people in exile under the oppression of Pharaoh narrative. That is very biblical. White CPs buy the "Be holy as I am holy" narrative as they see decay in key institutions. That is very biblical too. But what about the larger narrative?
Economics affects how we see the story we find ourselves in but I am not sure it is the policies promoted by differing groups that sways people. It is the narrative implied by, and attached to those policies that people vote for. My analysis of the year is that left or right, policies are advocated that have no impact on the issue they are alleged to address and even can be counterproductive, but the advocacy of the policy reinforces the narrative. Therefore, I think if we are truly concerned about justice we have to rigorously test our narratives against THE narrative and rigorously ask if the policies we promote actually accomplish as advertised, even when the policy may be seen by many as invigorating the group’s narrative.
Also, the focus has become less about promoting and emphasizing our narrative. It has become, in recent years, an epic battle to trivialize, demonize, or in some other way destroy competing narratives and their proponents.
Don’t know if this makes sense. I’m still processing.
I read in The Church as Counterculture that Christians ought not adhere to Exodus theology, because we are called to something quite different than Exodus, or escaping persecution. We're called to lay down our lives for our oppressors in the midst of the oppression, fighting their evil with love, in the hope of participating in their redemption. It's what Christ modeled for us. The authors pointed out that Exodus theology is inappropriately touted by groups who have been oppressed through the ages. Not saying I agree or disagree (I lent the book to a friend who has never returned it, so I can't go back and review it), just tossing that out there.
This is why we shouldn't stop with a "proper" hermeneutic and must look to the Holy Spirit.
Matt S #30
I don't know what this author had in mind by "Exodus theology" but I think it is a "both/and" deal. We are in exile in a hostile world where God is bring us home. We are called to imitate Christ as the suffering servant laying ourselves down for the world. We are called to be a separate and holy people, but we are sent into the world. I think the danger is to latch on to the sub-narrative that most justifies the story we think we find ourselves in and then elevate it above all others.
#29-To assert that the exilic/exodus and holiness concepts can be played off, in our understanding of currents in politcal discourse as below a narrative understanding of teh Bible is quizzical.Theologically,the exodus is the theological center of the OT (and one can say of the Bible!).It shows us who YHWH is by what YHWH does in the world of human communities,his chosen community,for this to be an everlasting testimony to the world of who YHWH is--teh point of the Exodus as a witness to the nations.(Note:this underlies how YHWH desires the Israelites to treat resident aliensm knowing what they were subjected to and YHWH would to them if they did the same. The Levitical Holiness Codes fit in with this in that is defines a community under this god with social/ethical boundaries which reflect YHWH's justice.The portriat of YHWH as protector of the weak,the widows,the fatherless,the poor and the oppressed is not one theme among many but THE "portrait" we have of YHWH in many different strands of the OT,the Law,Prophets and the Writings.And this is at the core of Jesus' ministry and self-understanding (Isa. 61)to Paul'e critique of Greco-Roman social norms,the critiques of Roman power(Babylon)in Revelation to the ethic of James and the Catholic Epistles.It's ubiquitous!
From all this talk about God and theology,in a sense,much of the discourse here does not take the GOd of teh OT and Jesus serious:God cannot be abstracted from who YHWH has revealed himself to be once for all to be,the God of the Exodus.In fact,most Semitic grammarians interpret the idem per idem construct YHWH to mean divine saving presence (I AM really present [to save]--in the context of the Exodus narrative.)Thus when Africam American slaves heard white preachers give them a theology of approving slavery,they said it was a lie. Why? Many of the slave narratives tell us that they said the Holy Spirit told them this.The myth of objectivity is another lie;obedience, humility and an openess appeal to the god of the Bible on GOd's terms can open doors for greater understanding.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.