Why I wrote WHAT DOES A PROGRESSIVE CHRISTIAN BELIEVE?
It is possible that the election next November will turn America away from right-wing politics and polices, and in a more progressive direction. But I don't think that change will last very long if progressive Christians don't learn to “speak” their faith publicly, noticeably, and effectively. Why? Because, at least in this country for the foreseeable future, the political process will not bring about a sustainable progressive vision without a broad grounding in religion! And in the United States that requires, specifically (though not exclusively), grounding a progressive vision in Christianity.
The claim that we need “more Christianity” in our public life will seem dubious, if not downright dangerous, to our friends on the secular left. The past thirty years have provided lots of reasons for that fear, but in the end it is mistaken. The fear of religion in the public life of a pluralistic democracy comes from a misunderstanding of religion. Until that misunderstanding is overcome, there is, I believe, little long term hope for a progressive America.
Let me explain my (perhaps) strange view.
The values by which we live, and vote, arise out of our worldviews, and religions are worldviews. Arguably they are not the only valid worldviews, but throughout history they have been the most common ones. They still are for most human beings, including most Americans. And in the United States the most pervasive and influential of these religious perspectives is Christianity. In other words, Christianity is the most influential source of values and value-laden visions in contemporary America.
As long as the dominant Christian voice in our public life is that of the religious right, right wing versions of Christianity will continue to underlie, sway, drive, and often determine American public life. Until progressive Christianity is (once again?) a clear and compelling voice in the land, there will be (except for occasional, and misleading, interludes) no widely shared value base for progressive social and political policies.
More to the point, unless—in the next very few years—you and I and other progressive Christians become articulate and outspoken about why and how Christianity is on the side of just policies, inclusive practices, factual analyses, and rational thinking, a progressive victory next November will provide but a brief respite before the Christian right-wing, with the massive support of its religious organizers and secular funders, rises again.
WHAT DOES A PROGRESSIVE CHRISTIAN BELIEVE? is one person's attempt to give public voice to a biblically informed and historically grounded progressive Christian perspective. It (and my speeches here and there) will be most useful, however, not as finished statements to be adopted, but as an invitation to others to become clearer in their own minds, and to state effectively in public discussions, why they are progressives—and, more importantly, why they are progressives because they are Christians.
A progressive victory next November, if that happens, will be a genuine victory only if there emerges an effective progressive Christian public voice in the months and years ahead...beginning now. This book is an invitation, and a contribution to that beginning. I look forward to your comments.
Del Brown
Del,
We have some conversation going on line about race, bigotry and intolerance. What can you add? What does the Bible say? How best can a progressive Christain respond to the issues of race, bigotry and intolerance?
Mark, Gary, Tripp, Ian anything you can or would like to add? Any lay folks like to step in here?
Rich
Hi Rich,
The Bible says a good bit verbally about intolerance and even more is implicit in the actions it describes. Unfortunately, not all of what the Bible says is exemplary by any means! In my book, however, I point out the very diversity of theologies and moral perspectives within the Bible makes it "unbiblical" to use specific biblical texts as "answers" on issues like these.
I suggest that the test for the progressive Christian is the two great commandments--first, love of God and, second (something that is "like unto the first"), love of the neighbor as one loves oneself. And in the biblical tradition the "neighbor" is not simply the one next door; the neighbor is the one in need, the one deprived, the one mistreated. As Jesus is reported to have said, all of the aspirations implicit in the law and the prophets point to, and should be judged in light of, the two great commandments.
Thus, in my view all other moral teachings are useful as guides to us, sometimes by the shortcomings and mistakes they demonstrate as well as sometimes by their (never perfect) insight and courage. I think the injunction to love the neighbor as we rightly love ourselves, is a pretty clear general guide to how we ought to think about racism, sexism and other forms of bigotry.
The problem, as I point out in my chapter on sin, is that a general guide is not a specific one, and, more important, even the clarity that we do have about what we ought to do is obscured by us in our magnificent strategies of self-deception--we "deceive ourselves," as Paul puts it in Romans. Our failures to love as we should, and our denial that this is so, evolve into the structures of "unlove" into which we are born and which we internalize. We come to accept "unloving" ways of being (racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.) as normal and so we live comfortably with them. This is what Christian tradition, at its best, came to call "original sin." (It had nothing to do with sex!).
Del
As always Ben and Angelo you both add much to our discussions.
Ben I understand your position. Big government has many negatives. I see any human organism such as overly large governments and business enterprises as having many of the same drawbacks, especially entrenched bureaucracies. Churches, universities, cultural groups, and even large non-profits suffer from the same malady.
Like Angelo I see role of government to provide responsible oversight; to provide a "level playing field" so that all people, not a priviledged few bonded together to exploit any advantages; cultural, economic, political they may have or create, gain unfair advantages over the many.
I've a bureaucrat, an entepreneur, an educator, member of 2 Church Boards of Trustees, and have served on the Boards of Directors of 3 non-profits and raised funds for 2 non-profits, so I've seen and been a participant in the hierarchies that people, by nature, create. People will employ whatever resources at their disposal to gain the security we all seek. Ben, as a conservative, you place your trust in free enterprise. I do also to the degree that it is publically transparent in the effects of its policies. Run your business in privacy, maintaining whatever trade secrets you need, just don't use the power privately gained to exploit the public resources we all need and should have equal access to. I say the same to big government bureaucrats and elected officials.
We need both assertive business and big government. Both are equally capable of generating new ideas, products and services that benefit the whole of the human family. It's a matter of balance, not superiority of one over the other.
Rich
Those are good insights on government and free markets, Rich. I didn't think of it, but you're right... whenever any organization gets big, whether it be the government or business or churches or unions, entrenched bureaucracies become a problem. I agree with what you said about transparency.
I'm from the other side of the Progressive/Conservative divide from Benj, but I agree that though methodologies are different, there are some common goals. I wouldn't mind if churches take more of an active lead in helping the poor, possibly from interdenominational cooperation. It would be nice for churches to team with the government, though it would have to be careful not to tread the separation of church and state.
Ben,
I left out an important point. You expressed the idea that you'd prefer the church to make these changes. I see the role of the church as being the conscience of our society, the place of the visionaries who see where we have been, are now and perhaps need to go. Megascale thinking like MLK, Jr. brought to the table. This is what I think Jesus was doing, lifing the eyes and spirits of the masses to the top of the mountain, to ascribe to the highest of ideals.
Implementation by churches is best done on the microscale level. The most appropriate role for the church, its best and primary role is to inmplement on the community level, on the one-to-one personal level. Big business/government just isn't equipped, and needn't be, to do the micro level stuff. They operate on the megascale; different levels, different roles. Change is made at both levels, are crucial to the overal health of a nation. Big business can offer employment, challenge young minds to create new products and services. Big government can supply the means to serve business infrastructure needs, and start up cash for the business community.
This is a balanced private/public partnership sort of thing. Both are equally important and crucial for the success of any nation, just as is the progressive/conservative partnership.
Rich
I concur that the church is set up best to serve at microscale levels. Where I live, deep in the Bible belt in the great state of Georgia, we have seven churches on every corner. Even in the west and NE, I have seen plenty of churches though not as frequent as here down south. If the Church began acting on the microscale level across the nation, I believe that many of the macroscale problems would be alleviated. I may be naive to believe such, but man, the power of the church that is currently untapped. We have the power of the Holy Living God that created the universe inside us and if we united together, think of the accomplishments.
It is unfortunate that I can never see this happening due to the polarization between not only political parties but also between Christian denominations. I know that there are many in my own church that would think I am crazy for spending time on this web site much less engaging in conversation. An attitude that I hope I am part of eliminating among my associates.
Probably got off track a little from the topic - oops.
Ben
Ben,
Your church is a truly dedicated witness to the healing ministry of Jesus. I hope you and your church continue to multiply, to start new ones.
And I say Amen to your statement, "If the Church began acting on the microscale level across the nation, I believe that many of the macroscale problems would be alleviated".
If the Church were to even more loudly tell the "good news" of healing nature of Jesus' ministry we would witness a sea change in our nation's attitude towards minorities, we'd further expose and repudiate the bigotry we now see. I believe Senator Obama's candidacy is "divinely guided", as it reveals the bigotry we must face in the personage of the John Hagee's amidst our Christian community, the damaging comments by Bill Clinton and Geraldine Ferraro, the assessment of Rush Limbaugh. I sincerely believe his candidacy represents an opportunity to start healing the bigotry. Once the wound is lanced and drained, it will allow this nation to unleash the great unrealized potential in our minority communities.
As evidence of this healing potential I cite the Associated Press' report of the apologies Senator Clinton made last night to the black community. She apologized for her husbands remarks after the SC primary, repudiated Geraldine Ferarro's remarks - noting Ms. Ferraro's departure from her campaign - and used her apology for her post-Katrina remarks to criticize George Bush's mistreatment of our fellow citizens. If Senator Obama's candidacy can prompt a powerful politician like Hillary Clinton to fess up and apologize then some powerful sea change may be at hand. Her apology was truly remarkable, a true miracle.
And let me add the repudiation of similiar "muslim" comments made by conservative talk show host Bill Cunnigham as he warmed up the crowd last week in Illinois at a McCain event, by Senator McCain. I see he and Senator Obama seeking to maintain the moral high road. Now Hillary seems to be following suit.
This nation has a long history of bigotry. Church's like yours Ben provide powerful witness to Jesus' healing ministry. You and your church may in fact be in the vanguard for healing our nations bigotry. May Our Creator continue to guide you and your fellow church folk as you express more ways to witness.
Rich
Del,
I know you note how both liberal and fundamentalist theology has failed over the last century, but it seems like your progressive Christian theology is a lot closer to liberal theology than fundamentalist theology. Would you agree with that?
I'm also wondering if you think theological conservatives or fundamentalists can be progressive Christians? The quote on page 54, with which I agree in my own belief system, seems to exclude fundamentalists from the Progressive Christian tent:
I wonder how are more evangelical members would respond to that statement. Please jump in the conversation.
Hi Steve,
Yes, to both, with a couple of explanations to elaborate, and maybe complicate! Yes, my view is a cosmos apart from those of fundamentalists, as I define them, even though I suppose a fundamentalist could have progressive views on certain social and political issues (arrived at in a way that is theologically "unprogressive"). And, yes, I think a fundamentalist cannot be a progressive CHRISTIAN, in part for the reason you cite. Now for the elaboration...
I think it very important to distinguish conservative, fundamentalist, and religious right. A fundamentalist believes the Bible is the inerrant, literal word of God and if the Bible says it the Christian, to be Christian (and "saved," etc.), must believe it. The religious right melds the fundamentalist position with the ideology of the political right, using the religious position to ground the political view.
There are other Christians who do not argue that the Bible is inerrant, literally true, the precise presentation of God's will, and who do not try to trump the opposition by appealing to God's clear will. But these people still find it important to call themselves "conservatives," for a number of theological and non-theological reasons. Theologically, they live in the confidence that the Bible is the sufficiently clear (if not perfect) word of God, belief in which (at some level) is necessary for the salvation of all people. Spiritually, they tend strongly toward giving preference to the judgments and practices of past generations of Christians. Practically, they reject (or are highly suspicious of) the idea that "God is still speaking" or that Christians can learn from other religions and secular sources something of essential importance about what is good and true. But, as I say, these people are not religious dogmatists and they do equate politics and religion. Incidentally, they, in my view, have the best claim to the label of "evangelical," given the history of that term, although in the more general sense of "bearers of good news," progressive Christians are certainly "evangelicals," too. (Which explains why I try to avoid using "conservative" and "evangelical" as synonyms.)
I think it important to distinguish these kinds of conservatives from fundamentalist and "rightists" both because it is factually more adequate, but also because--I'll be blunt--it is strategically important. We will not persuade fundamentalists and "rightists" to support progressive political and social values. Conservatives (as I identify them) are in principle open to considering progressive commitments. But they are not likely to listen to us if we keep lumping them together with the doctrinaire views of fundamentalism, religious or political. And perhaps more important, we should be able to tell them, credibly, that, yes, there is a place for conservative Christians within the progressive Christian movement.
Thanks, Steve, for the opportunity to try to be clearer about how I understand these terms. They are not sufficiently clear in the book (and life itself messes up our conceptual schemes!).
Del
The thing about definitions is that you will never have enough definitions to include everyone, especially ones as broad as these. Grant it, I have not read the book, so maybe I am missing some of the specifics of the definitions or not getting a clear picture of the difference.
Based on the above, I would fit more closely with the second group described above, though I do hold to the inerrancy of the Bible in its original form.
The main difference I see between progressive Christians and the likes of me, conservative fundamental - whatever you want to call it, is not necessarily what we want to accomplish but the methodology. As it has been discussed in prior posts, Conservative Christians, myself included, think that the majority of the goals progressives should be done by the church and not the government.
I agree with most of the initiatives that IPC and Cross Left have, yet I hold to the fact that it is the church's job and not the government's.
The other area of major disagreement that is less political, is the area of the progressive compromise. Most conservative Christians have the idea that progressive Christians believe in universal salvation and no matter what you believe, it is OK because we are all on the same path, and that this is a compromise of the Gospel. This was also discussed thoroughly in other posts.
I believe if you can find a way to bridge those two gaps of methodology and the seemingly compromise of the Gospel then you can reach the group of evangelicals you wish to. It will take compromise on both sides of the gap. Each will have to determine what issues can be compromised and which ones need to be held tight.
Thanks for the thoughtful post Benj. It's hard to say with anything definitive, since just as conservatives are not all of one mind on things, spirtual progressives are likewise not uniform in their beliefs. But in general, I agree with what you wrote of as the major differences between conservative and progressive Christians. I haven't yet read Del's book either, but it sounds like a good book.
When you write that it's the church's job and not the government's job to do accomplish the progressives goals, it reminds me of the debates I have with my brother in law. He's agnostic, but a fiscal conservative and we have these debates about the government and the free markets whenever he visits. He sees the faults of big government and mind numbing bureacracies and sees the free markets as being more efficient, I see the faults of the free markets and see the government as the only thing big enough to correct the faults of the free market. We've yet to change each others minds, but they've been fun conversations.
We've had posts before on how much churches can bear the problems of poverty and social progress. Different progressives may have different opinions on this. I personally think churches can help alleviate many of the problems, but the government needs to take its part in alleviating the worst aspects of poverty. But I do agree with you that churches can play a part in progressive goals. What are some things that your church does, or churches in your area does to help the poor and disadvantaged?
You asked about my church...
We have been instrumental in assisting our local Baptist association in establishing a facility that offers countless services to the disadvantaged. It is a food bank, clothing bank, provides monetary assistance (with strict guidelines), medical clinic, pro bono attorney assistance, job training, physical labor assistance, counseling for a variety of situations including young women in crisis pregnancies, etc etc. The only service it does not provide is shelter and the reason is there is already very well run Christian organization locally that runs a large shelter for the homeless.
The Baptist facility here locally does not have a website but was modeled after Mission Arlington in TX which does at missionarlington.org.
My church has also planted a mission church in one of the most disadvantaged areas of town. It is a block from one of the largest government housing complexes in town. The church provides chicken and rice meal to anyone who wants it every Saturday just for the chance to minister to the people in the neighborhood. The pastor of the church and his family even bought a house two doors down from the church even though they could have afforded a house in a better section of town just to be available to those he ministers to in their own neighborhood.
We do much more especially around Thanksgiving and Christmas. My church is very active is assisting the disadvantaged which is sadly a rarity.
Ben
Ben,
The work your church is engaging in is exemplary and inspiring. Southern Baptists (I presume your church is part of the SBC) have a long history of delivering help in crisis and other situations where humanitarian aid is needed. Teams of Baptist volunteers flooded into Katrina ravaged coastal communities immediately after the storm while Federal, State, and local governments bumbled along trying to figure out who was on first.
One of the differences between progressive and more fundamental Christians is the willingness of fundamentalists to roll up their sleeves and get down in the trenches to do the work progressives often expect the government to do. This is due primarily to two things...one, the heart of a fundamentalist is to believe and obey what they read in the scriptures which includes personal ministry to the "least of these" among us. The second is related to their valid frustration with government inefficiency in handling relief and welfare.
However, I think our more fundamental brethren overestimate the capacity and the call of the Church to tackle the underlying causes of poverty. I fully agree with Ben and others in thinking that the Church has an unmet responsibility to minister to the immediate needs of those within our own faith community and beyond. How far beyond the boundaries of our own church rolls should churches be committed considering most churches can't carry the financial burden of the poor within their own membership?
I am not aware of any scriptural mandate for the Church to singly tackle the elimination of world wide poverty, but the Church should be the social conscience and God's voice speaking to all governments to shoulder their responsibility to regulate the dynamics and flow of commerce in such a way as to address the systemic causes of global poverty. Only then can a real dent be made in eliminating global poverty.
Christians of every stripe need to come to a consensus and speak with one voice on poverty.
Yes, I am a member in a SBC church. Baptist were not the only ones in the coastal communities before the government - there were many religious organizations including the Scientologists, if you classify them as religious.
You said, "I am not aware of any scriptural mandate for the Church to singly tackle the elimination of world wide poverty." Indeed, I am not either. In fact, I recall Jesus telling His disciples that the poor will always be among you. But the command of do unto the least of these is still there.
I completely agree with your last statement, and when that happens, the Church will make great progress.
Out of curiosity, I have not seen too much on this site about Bush's African assistance policy. I believe Stephen posted something about it a while back basically saying too little too late. (I could be remembering a post on another blog but my memory is saying it was Stephen on CrossLeft) But this initiative of his started back in 2001, I believe and has had great success which is why the African people welcomed him in the way they did a couple of weeks ago. Why are the progressives not giving credit where it is due on his efforts in Africa?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/africa/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4638323.stm
Ben
I just came across a website entitled "Government is Good" (www.governmentisgood.com). Here's an excerpt from an article "Doing Good Through Government" which substantiates the point that church resources are too limited, even at the microlevel:
"On any measure, the good works accomplished by government have far eclipsed those of churches and other charities. And this makes sense, because the resources of these private institutions are very limited compared to the resources wielded by government. So while my local soup kitchen feeds dozens of people a week, it is the federal food stamp program that is primarily responsible for greatly reducing hunger among the thousands of poor in our community.
"On the surface, it seems that charities may spend large amounts on helping the needy in our society – after all, Americans give about $240 billion to philanthropic organizations annually. But this figure is misleading. Most of the money raised by charities and non-profit organizations does not in fact go to those in need. Most of it goes to programs and facilities – like the YMCA, art museums, colleges, medical research, public television stations, churches, etc. – that primarily serve the middle and upper class people who donate the money. Only about 10% or $24 billion goes to fund human service programs for the needy. And only half of that amount– about $12 billion – goes to services for low-income families.
"In contrast, the federal government alone spends over $200 billion a year on programs aimed at poor and low-income families, including welfare, food stamps, Medicaid, and housing subsidies.
"Moreover, government also funds much of the anti-poverty and anti-hunger work done by charitable groups. Local, state, and federal governments regularly contribute large amounts to the budgets of many non-profit human service organizations.
"Catholic Charities USA, which provides emergency food and shelter to the poor, gets 65% of its budget from the government. So it is clearly the government that is carrying the bulk of the load in caring for the neediest people in our society. Private charities and non-profits simply do not have the means to deal adequately with poverty, homelessness, hunger, or virtually any of the serious problems that are causing suffering in our society."
Bill
Here are some of my initial reactions to your points. (I have not read the website your referenced yet but will check it out later.)
You said, "Most of the money raised by charities and non-profit organizations does not in fact go to those in need. Most of it goes to programs and facilities – like the YMCA, art museums, colleges, medical research, public television stations, churches, etc."
That was exactly my point when I briefly stated in an earlier response on this topic that most churches are concerned with building sports complexes, multi-million dollar facilities, and playgrounds that beat Chuckie Cheeses'. The Church as a whole is too inward focused. When the Church wakes up and realizes that the teachings of Jesus never say to build a gym so your members can have a place to play basketball or to build a cathedral lined with gold and marble instead of feeding the poor, then the Church can be an effective player in the fight against poverty.
Regarding the government being the agent to fight poverty:
I believe the current systems the government uses to fight poverty keeps people in poverty. The government seems content to allow people to use its welfare system over and over and years with no end. This does not fight poverty. This puts a bandaid on a slashed throat. Fighting poverty means to assist people to take the steps to get out of poverty and maybe use a little tough love when people refuse to take these steps by cutting off the free handouts at a certain point.
The Bible teaches us that the one who does not work does not eat. You reap what you sow. So I am all in favor of government programs that assist people who have come on hard times and are trying to get back on their feet by getting out there and working or trying to work. I have a problem with people who hold their hand out for the government to fill their pockets while sitting on their duff all day. Which my experience has been the majority of the government handout recipients. The people who use government handouts like they were set up to be used, do not need them forever because this country has many opportunities for those willing to work for them.
I will find time to check out the website in the near future.
Ben
Ben and Jim,
I've long wondered way so many religious organizations eventually fall victim to the "edifice complex". Some of it can be pure ego on the part of the orgnaization that evolves over time. That's why I intuitively distrust organizations that bear the founders name.
But I think, at least in historic days, that the builders were in some deep way trying to create a bit of heaven on earth, to create in stone and morter, a sense of awe, to inspire the uneducated with sense of hope, a glimpse into the after life, that life eternal would be their reward for living a life of love and obedience.
I note also the wide use of gargyles, to instill fear into the hearts of those who may be tempted to stray from the flock, to give them a vivid sense of what they might encounter in Hell.
Today, I think a lot of churches are built to compete with the gaudy secular world, hence the schools, gymnasiums and the like.
All these builders miss the point. Jesus told us 2,000 years ago that "the kingdom of God is within you". No need for exterior buildings, just maintain the kingdom with in you and you shall be safe and secure throughout eternity. IMO heaven and hell I am most concerned about are those that we build here in this eartly orb. Read Luke 17:20-21.
A bit of the subject but relevant. Survivors of the Near Death Experience tell us of a place of beauty that saw but were not allowed, at the present time, to enter. I have a good friend who clincally died on the operating table, (his heart stopped for 15 minutes), saw the place of beauty, was told it was not his time and returned "madder than Hell" to use his words, "that he had to come back". So now he's finishing his unfinished business and looks forward to the day he can leave for good. I, too, do not fear death, just the process.
Cheers,
Rich
Ben,
I'm with you completely on the subject of church buildings and facilities. In Jackson MS, we referred to the huge downtown Southern Baptist complex as the First Baptist Acropolis, complete with bowling alleys, gyms, and GOK what else.
On the other issues, no. Going on memory alone, without looking up current data, I would say that the facts don't bear out your case against government aid. In the past, studies have shown that most people who use welfare don't stay on it for long. The "lifers" were a relatively small minority. Currently, the laws set a time limit on welfare -- 5 years total during one's lifetime. And no provisions for those who get timed out and have no other resources.
However, all temporary aid, including church aid, is a bandaid unless new options and opportunities are opened up for the recipients. The punitive rules in place now rule against counting education as a substitute for workfare. While the welfare rolls have decreased, so have the incomes of those who are moved off them.
Tough love is fine. But where are the opportunities and the jobs? Since children are a large proportion of the welfare-receiving population, how does tough love work for them? That's always been a tough issue to deal with, partly out of a sentimentality that tends to make advocates support loose welfare rules, but also out of realism: kids are vulnerable and the rules aren't very accommodating to their interests.
I think your characterization of the majority of recipients as sitting on their duffs all day while holding their hands out for the government to fill their pockets is a false stereotype. Maybe we should both go and look up the latest in the studies on poverty and welfare programs. At this point, we just have dueling impressions. The subject is worthy of extensive discussion. Perhaps we should have a continuing CrossLeft forum on assessing just where the country stands on welfare policies and poverty facts.
Bill
My impression of the welfare system is not from looking at any studies, but on my direct experience. My former career as a police officer brought me into contact with many of the recipients of government programs, especially government housing. And all I saw was people using the free housing and not working all day long (nor out looking for work), sitting on the front porch, not doing anything that would enable them to get out of government housing. To this day, if you go drive through a local government housing complex in my home town, it will be very well populated in the middle of the day. Then drive through an apartment complex where people are required to pay for the housing and you see very few people present. Why? Because people are at work.
So you are right in that I may not have a correct perception of the welfare system according to what is on paper. But my perception is very correct when you put feet on the ground and see first hand how it is working here.
Church aid is a bandaid if it is not accompanied with other assistance in getting people out of where they are. That is why facilities such as I described earlier are effective uses of church funds because they offer job training and life training.
In addition, church aid should usually be accompanied with some form of "witnessing" or attempt to bring the Gospel to those receiving the aid. Certainly, saving a soul is worth the effort of the church's aid even if that person remains poor the rest of their life. And I know we have had this discussion before, but this is another reason I believe it should be the church's job and not the government's.
I would be willing to look at numbers that show the effectiveness of the welfare system, and then have a more informed discussion about them. More informed discussion are always better. :)
Ben
...is also formed by direct experience with people on welfare in Mississippi, Illinois, and New York.
You saw the ones sitting around. Did you ask why or what alternatives they had?
I saw those in Mississippi who worked on the side -- illegally, but out of necessity, since the Missisippi welfare system in the 60s determined what a family's need was and then granted only about a third of that need. I saw poor people who organized other poor people for "welfare rights", for a fair shake from the system. And I've seen Community Action Programs and training programs cut back. And a lack of affordable housing. And jobs being moved away to where they're inaccessible to the poor. And a tremendous loss of manufacturing jobs.
Bill
Ben, you attend a very commendable church. If all churches were like your church, you're right, we wouldn't need the government doing so much. In a post you wrote about interdenominational polarization. Can your church team up with other churches in the area or is there a lot of insularity between churches? Here in Sunnyvale my church participates in a rotating homeless shelter with other churches. One month a year, a participating church uses its church facilities for homeless people to sleep at night. From what I've heard, it seems to work well.
Your church has a lot of good ideas to help the poor. Right now there's a discussion in Crossleft on ways to help the poor and it'd be good to hear how Baptists help out. From reading a previous post, I'm also glad you're posting and holding a conversation. From my time in Crossleft, it's been good reading perspectives from Catholics, Episcopalians, Quakers, Evangelicals, and other denominations.
Yes, Ben, your church is sadly a rarity. And a good example to nominally more 'progressive' churches which rarely do that much.
I rambled through the missionarlington.org site. It reminded me of a smaller parachurch group that I worked with in Champaign IL -- emptytomb.org.
I can see why you think the church should do most of what the government does. Yours is putting a lot of effort where its mouth is. Aside from the issue of macroscale vs. microscale, however, there's the question of the adequacy of private resources first to do all the rescue work that's needed and then to carry out constructive projects to move people out of their poverty.
empty tomb writes about patterns of giving in the church. The levels are pretty low. Their annual reports on giving get some national media coverage -- check out their site.
Do you think what your church and your Baptist association is doing is fully adequate? How much more can they realistically do? How far can they reach into the surrounding region? How large a town and region is it?
In a modest-sized metropolitan area like the 3-city "Capital District" centered in Albany NY, we have lots of congregations (in varying states of health), many mostly uncoordinated projects, and much more poverty and urban decay than we seem to be able to handle.
There's a good deal of inter-church and interfaith effort put into organizing lobbying pressure for regional revitalization, justice-system and educational reforms, and for immigrant rights. That's based on the idea that changes are needed that go beyond palliative measures and that are on a larger scale than any combination of religious institutions can effect. Effective and accountable local and state government action is required. We have too many local units and they don't coordinate well with each other: new forms of cooperation have to be developed. It gets complicated -- but the churches and the other faith communities have a creative role to play and a message to keep delivering about the moral imperatives for 'progressive' change.
Bill
Looks like a great organization. The About Us page is great and I especially love that they have their financial documents linked right on that page showing a great amount of transparency.
You asked, "Do you think what your church and your Baptist association is doing is fully adequate? How much more can they realistically do? How far can they reach into the surrounding region? How large a town and region is it?"
No it is not adequate. However, there are enough Baptist churches in my town (Columbus, GA - a mid-sized city that services about 250,000 including the surrounding communities) that if each one follows our lead then it could be adequate. We were approached by the Baptist association to help establish Mission Columbus. We were running our own much smaller ministry in the same vein, but we shut ours down and threw all our resources to the new bigger ministry run by the association. If each Baptist church did this, then yes, the effect on Columbus would be amazing. But obviously, not every church wants to give control of their funds and resources to the association. Also, not every church sees this as an effective use of their funds. They would rather build sport complexes so that their members can play in basketball leagues and soccer leagues and softball leagues etc etc etc. Funny, I do not find that mandate in the Gospels any where. Does anyone else find it?
One problem of being in the Bible belt is that church is so much part of the culture and it is expected that everyone be a member of some church. This makes the church act like the local social club instead of performing the function of the church.
Angelo asked about working with other churches and that is the bridge is the hardest to cross as stated above. And that is just among Baptist churches. Trying to cross denominational lines is met with great barriers as well. It is unfortunate but I and many in my church are working to break down those barriers. Again, I think that the culture of the South has helped build these walls.
There are many great reasons for living in the Bible belt one of which dialog is easy - everybody is willing to talk about God or church. But there are the drawbacks as I mentioned.
Hi Benj,
I agree that definitions are always defied by reality, but think, as you probably do, that they are necessary and useful as rough guides or tentative distinctions.
And I agree that methodological differences lurk beneath many differences on substantive matters. But, I think, not all. There are, for example, some "liberals" who attempt to proof-text the way that some "conservatives" do, and am not sure that differences on universal salvation are necessarily methodological in character.
I hope you get a chance to read the book because you are the type of thoughtful conservative with whom I especially welcome conversation, and I hope you will find in the book an appreciative and fair treatment (and critique) of conservatisms (in the plural) as well as liberalisms.
Del
Del,
This is a very helpful explanation of distinguishing between the various facets of conservative and fundamentalist thought.
I personally believe that even the fundamentalists who believe inerrancy, still interpret the Bible. These folks are just not willing to admit to their interpretation, rather claiming that they have the one true reading. Its always been confusing for me because its always been hard for me to think about Jesus as a fundamentalist given the fact that he challenged all the religious fundamentalists of his time.
I do think there's room in the Progressive Christian big tent for theological conservatives, and maybe even for folks who hold a more fundamentalist view. For example, many folks have been able to support gay civil rights politically even as they disagree theologically. Those voices are helpful in the debate in connecting with other fundamentalists or conservatives.
I'm wondering how are more conservative or evangelical members feel about these definitions. Chime in guys!
Just a reminder that you can buy the book through CrossLeft at our favorite independent book store, Powell's.
http://www.crossleft.org/?q=books.
Yes, by all means. Buying from independent bookstores supports them rather than the giants. It also usually results in putting a copy of a book on their shelves that might not have been there otherwise, since ordinarily they will order an extra copy.
Hi Rich,
Thanks for sharing your pilgrimmage.
Your way of speaking about the "Creator," and how you understand this term, have lots of parallels in the historic tradition and are well represented among progressive Christians today. And, as you would imagine, your path is not unlike that of many, many others today. If you have not already bought the book, you (and others, of course!) can read the Preface "for free" at www.progressivetheology.wordpress.com. An earlier version of the entire text was posted there, but it was removed once the publication contract was signed--understandably. In any case, I hope you do get a copy of the book and find it to be of value. I'll look forward to the change to discuss it with you.
Del
Del,
Thanx for your reassuring reply. So I'm not such a nut afterall! I haven't met many like me. Today I describe myself as a Neo-Deist. I've come by way of both reason and faith. Quantum physics, environmental studies (where I pioneered and taught at 3 universities in the late 70's), history, psychology (especially Jung's work), religious studies (Quimby, Fillmore, Holmes, Biblical studies), Near Death Experience studies, even Spiritualism, plus my own close brushes with death have been inspiring waystations on my joyous journey to enlightenment.
Today I find the life of Jesus to be more and more important. To me He is the Wayshower on the path to learning how to love one another. Currently, in addition to your book, which I have on back order (though I may yet purchase it via CrossLeft's outlet), my wife and I are studying "The Gospel According to Jesus: A New Translation and Guide to His Essential Teachings for Believers and Non-believers" by Stephen Mitchell (who also translated the Book of Job and the Tao Te Ching). I also just purchased "Jesus for the Non Religious" by John Shelby Spong. As you can see I am very interested, like Thomas Jefferson, in getting past the mythology about Jesus and to just get what He said, not what later writers said as a way to embellish His life.
In "The Gospel According to Jesus" you get the whole of Jesus' teachings in 25 pages! (pp. 101-126) Short, sweet and to the point. You also get a detailed Introduction with notes and following the Gospel, a long detailed Commentary.
I prefer to focus on the message, not so much the messenger.
I look forward with much anticipation to reading your book. BTW, as an IPC Board member I'd like to see us develop an panel of progressive theologians, ordained or not. I believe we need to be soundly grounded in the life and teachings of Jesus plus the other master teachers. We are, afterall, in the west, all chidren of Abraham. Would you be open to serving on such a panel? I believe the Rev. Gary Vance is spearheading this effort via our Academic eview Panel.
Synchronistically I also see the Dalai Lama as being the most cuurently visible manifestation of "Christ Consciousness". He comes about as close to being the living Christ as I am aware.
Rich
Hi Rich,
We should have a vigorous discussion after you've had a chance to get up to and through my Christology chapter. I don't appeal to what Jesus "really" said because I doubt that we can determine that and, if we did, I am not sure we would agree with it. But neither do I treat the Jesus sayings (original or not) as traditional Christians say they do. And, for sure, I am as open to other traditions as you are. Is that enough to entice you to find out what I do say? I look forward to the conversation, all the more so because of the vast amount of reading you've done. (You didn't mention Marcus Borg's "Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time," but I'd guess you've read it, too.)
If the idea of a panel goes over with your Board, I'd be glad to contribute to it however I can.
Del
Del,
Great book - and only 122 pages. Succinct and to the point, that's what I like. So much to read these days can make a body blind! No, I haven't read Marcus Borg's book - yet. Thanx for the reference. My wife and I have largely finished reading Mitchell's book "The Gospel According to Jesus". The whole gospel on 25 pages, 101 to 126. Amazing. Now we get to study yours together. (BTW she's the oldest of 5 PK's. Her Dad served several small Disciples of Christ churches for nearly 40 years. And I started my quest as a Methodist. My Mom's family was loaded with Methodist ministers and missionaries. My Dad's side had a mortican so the family joke was " one side married 'em and the other side buried 'em)
I'll get back to you once I've read the chapter on Christolgy. I love a good discussion on matters of real import in our lives. And the ability to talk directly to the auther, as distinquished as thee Sir, adds more fun to the process. :)
I'd like many of the folks on this blog site to join in the discussion. I've heard many progressives ask "what do I say to conservatives when they ask 'what do I believe'? ". Your tome is just the place to start developing these answers. Who knows, we may even provide you with sufficient materials for a sequel!
Back to you soon.
Rich
You are right. It is absolutely crucial that progressives be able to say what they believe when asked, and (though I do think it secondary) to say why they do not believe what the religious right advocates. In my view, ONLY if we learn to articulate our progressive religious views effectively will there be a sustainable progressive "political" (in the broad and original sense of that term) environment in this country. As I say in the book, I am not arguing that mine is the only or best progressive Christian viewpoint. Rather I am attempting to give an example of such a view, which I hope can help others more fully think through and articulate their own. Like you, Rich, I am arguing that each of us had better be able to say what we believe and why.
Del
My book is supposed to be delivered here Tuesday, so don't say anything profound until after Tuesday. I would say no worries after that because I'm a fast reader, but I'm bogged halfway through Christ and Empire, last month's book. And it's a good one, too. I think I just haven't sat still long enough to read lately.
Take your time. I'll be "around" all month.
Del
Because my book didn't come today. Maybe tomorrow. If not tomorrow the mail guy is in danger because I'll be standing by the box with my mean, vicious (cocker spaniel sized mutt) snarling dog who has been dreaming of licking the mail guy for months. Unless that means not licking him in a fight but licking him like he does one of the cats, the only one who will stand still for total body dog kisses. Poor cat looks like she's been caught in a downpour.
I hope your book arrived, for the sake of your dog and cats, as well as the mail carrier--and, of course, for the sake of discussion.
Del,
Welcome to CrossLeft. It's so good to hear from someone who has actually taken the time to articulate progressive Christian values.
My spiritual journey has taken me along a fascinating path. From a Nominal Theist (I believed because Mom said I should), to an Agnostic phase (that's what college did for me), thru an Atheistic phase (how could a loving God let bad things happen?), thru a Non-theistic phase (whether a God existed or not was no longer important) to my present Neo-Deist position. I came here via my studies in so-called hard sciences, quantum physics in particular, human sciences like history and psychology and philosophy such as religion. I study the Bible quite often.
As defined in the encyclopedia a Deist accepts that "a certain body of religious knowledge is in-born or can be acquired by use of reason". I agree. We are born with certain almost instinctive knowing, accessed via our intuition, the power of our heart and later gain, via our intellect, the power of our head, we gain information, which becomes knowledge and later, wisdom.
My faith developed from reading religious texts, learning from spiritual leaders and much introspection.
It also developed from the occurance of certain events for which I had no logical explanation. Carl Jung called this synchroncity, seemingly unconnected events that, at a deeper (or higher) level, a superconscious level, are, upon reflection, interconnected.
My basic spiritual philosophy includes a powerful faith in My Creator (I use the term Creator because is is a neutral term, reflective of the nature of the universe), love for my neighbor as myself, love one another and love my enemies as Jesus commanded.
Well 'nuff for now. I'm out the door to purchase your book!
Rich