Bold New Direction for America by the Religious Left - Intro
Hello, my name is Bill Martin. I am brand new to your organization, and this is my first contribution to the discussion. Please give me a few moments of your time.
There are a huge number of Americans who feel unrepresented by the leaders of America today. They are Democrats at heart, but hardly ever vote for a Democrat for federal office. They identify with the religious right in that they are spiritual, and traditional, but don't accept a rigid ideology incapable of self-examination. These people, myself among them, are curious to see if the newly forming religious left becomes their voice and their vehicle.
In the next few months, I should like to propose that the religious left advocate a bold platform for changing America. I propose that the religious left should embrace taking America in a very different direction in several key areas, among them: Healthcare; Public Education; Immigration; the Welfare System; Corporate Responsibility and God.
Before you dismiss the suggested proposals, please keep two things in mind:
First, the Democratic Party (and whatever is left of Ross Perot's party) has demonstrated itself incapable of leading this country in a bold new direction. That must be because the ruling members of the organization (i.e., big unions, big bureaucracies, big trial lawyers) all profit from the status quo. An outside group, such as the religious left, because it shares the same goals but does not require a continuation of the status quo to maintain its own influence, could be a tremendous force for change.
Second, at first blush, the proposals may look and sound like they are coming from the Republicans, or from the religious right, and for that reason you will want to reject them outright. But therein lies the beauty. The proposals may look right-wing, but in fact they are decidedly left wing because they are broad minded, progressive, and directly empower the least fortunate among us. To embrace some, but not all, of the ideas of the other side, and make them your own, is the key to any successful social endeavor. For example, FDR historians brag about his ability to "co-op" the other side; Clinton fans have invented their own word for the same political art form: "triangulation." Or, to give you an example from religious history, rather than starting from scratch, didn't Christianity borrow heavily from Jewish theology. And didn't Christianity "co-op" festivals celebrating Mithra and Ishtar and make them their own Christmas and Easter?
To be the change we want to see in the world, we cannot just be "against" everything that the other side is "for". And we cannot continue to apply the tired old solutions from the past century (for example, throwing more money at a problem doesn't always fix it. If it did, the NY Yankees would never lose a World Series). Even if the solutions applied during the past century were successful, they are tired and ineffective going forward.
We have to have our own agenda and it must involve change. Let's have at it.
- William Martin's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Comments
Right, Mr. Martin, Jesus is "left" if we have a place for him
Excellent post, William.
The question is this:
Are believers going to be Christians following Republicans (or Democrats) or are Republicans and Democrats going to follow Christ? This dilemma was portrayed very well in a previously cited New York Times article, "Disowning Conservative Politics, Evangelical Pastor Rattles Flock" (http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F70911FD385B0C73..., copied below for those who can't link through). In the past decade or so America, led by a new brand of so-called Republicanism, has allowed itself idolize worldly concerns-- the sword and the dollar, putting issues that are either anti-Christian or non-Christian (war mongering, economic profit, gay marriage, etc.) on the highest pedestal and abusing the name of Christ to support intolerance, irresponsibility, greed, corruption, and ineptness.
Indisputably, if one looks in the New Testament, Jesus is a radical progressive who goes far beyond our primitive attempts to rationalize moral issues. "Love thy enemy" is clear as a bell, and just as clearly revolutionary. Jesus is opening the doors to recognizing that the spirit in all others must be recognized and honored within one's own faithful actions. We are still resisting his message, nearly two thousand years later, but his example and words stand as the standard bearer for what it means to be Christian. You can't conveniently choose to reinterpret or ignore "love thy enemy" for political expedience. I've argued in other posts that this "loving thy enemy" includes "calling out" the abuser, and protecting the abused against violence, but it never requires contempt and disrespect even for the most depraved.
What we have are two parties, one (the neo-Republicans) who have betrayed Jesus in every conceivable way, and the others (the neo-Democrats) who seem to have no place for Christ or Christ-like values. The first group (neo-Republicans) has systematically devastated the poor, exalted violence, increased suffering, engaged in excessive pride and love of power-- everything Jesus counseled against. Who will stand up to them? Christians, real Christians must. The second group (neo-Democrats) appears to be saddled with the illusion that secular freedom from spiritual obligation is the way to go, and that value-free living is possible or desirable. It is neither. Values do not have to be defined by neo-Republican intolerance. They must be redefined according to the compassionate morals of decent and caring people.
With the rise of progressive politics, and the recent victory of Ned Lamont, an anti-war, pro-"common good" candidate, a very Christ-like possibility is arising-- care for "the least of us", non-violence, and a radical inclusion and compassion, which finds any kind of hate unacceptable. One does not have to claim to be a "believer" to "follow" Christ (unless one is called to do so), just do what he did! I'd much rather have a follower of Christ's example in my camp who might not be a believer, who might be Republican, etc. than someone who claims to be Christian and either defiles all Christ stood for, ignores the importance of moral values altogether, or who supports mere relativism. That is the litmus test. Other attributes are secondary for me.
That is what we as progressive Christians should concentrate upon.
New York Times article:
July 30, 2006
Disowning Conservative Politics, Evangelical Pastor Rattles Flock
By LAURIE GOODSTEIN
MAPLEWOOD, Minn. — Like most pastors who lead thriving evangelical megachurches, the Rev. Gregory A. Boyd was asked frequently to give his blessing — and the church’s — to conservative political candidates and causes.
The requests came from church members and visitors alike: Would he please announce a rally against gay marriage during services? Would he introduce a politician from the pulpit? Could members set up a table in the lobby promoting their anti-abortion work? Would the church distribute “voters’ guides
re: religious left & bold platform for changing America
agree we need a bold new agenda
Bill,
Welcome to the discussion. In February, CrossLeft pulled together a group of progressive Christian leaders to establish such an agenda you are talking about:
http://www.crossleft.org/?q=node/1157
From this agenda, we are working on fall voter guide with Sojourner's and other groups. We will also be working on a new initiative through our think tank, the Institute for Progressive Christianity. The details of this initiative will come forward in the next week.
The agenda is working document and open to changes from the broader community. Feel free to suggest changes.
We also would love to have your energy involved with Crossleft.
take care,
steve
Reply to Bill Martin
First Bill, welcome aboard. It's good to have you.
Secondly, the New York Yankees should never have to lose a World Series. They are truly America's team (they play in the American League; the wear the same colors of the Union Army that saved this nation 140 years ago; they have the most American of names; and most of all, I root for them).
But more importantly, I think you're a bit harsh on the Democratic Party. The issue isn't as much "tired old solutions from the past century," but actually a rediscovery of core concepts that made liberalism the preeminent political philosophy from 1933 through 1968: self-discipline and overall contribution to the common good. To see what I'm talking about just click here.
By the way, I compliment you on the good "Yankee" name.