|
Saturday,
September 20, 2003
Taking Action instead of Complaining
As I have written publicly and privately, the
coverage of the Alabama tax reform movement in
both the mainstream media and the blogosphere
has been as source of frustration to me. While
there seemed to be plenty of space and time available
to portray the ridiculous spectacle engineered
by Judge Roy Moore, the serious and groundbreaking
efforts of white and black Evangelicals to forge
an alliance to remedy Alabama's heartless fiscal
policies drew little attention unless it was flippant
or even sneering.
I've searched in vain for alternative sources.
Beliefnet
is full of interesting material but their mission
is not to serve as a daily news pointer and filter.
Crosswalk
represents only a Christian Right point of view.
The Religion
News Service is subscriber only.
The Right Christians will attempt to fill this
void. On a daily basis, we will collect, filter
and point to news, analysis and opinion touching
upon the nexus between politics and religion.
On the model of Eschaton
or Dean
Esmay, there will be updates throughout the
day with brief commentary. We will aim to interest
the same widely diverse readership that has already
gathered here: progressive Christians, independent-thinking
Evangelicals, progressive Democrats, atheists
and agnostics, and members of the GLBT community.
There will still be the longer opinion and analysis
pieces presented three or four times a week that
seek to provide perspectives not commonly available
elsewhere. The popular "Obscure Bible Passage
of the Day" will also be included.
Finally, I am working toward making a move to
MT or similar blogging format to ease my production
burden and to use the commenting format with which
most of the readers are familiar.
As always, your comments and suggestions are
actively sought, especially as these changes are
made.
"Drunk on God"
Rabbi Jonathan Kendall retrieves an old Yiddish
phrase, "Gott drunkener menschen,"
or "God-intoxicated people. The term
was no compliment but a critical assessment that
someone was consumed by a narcissistic religiosity.
The rabbi applies it to both Paul
Hill and a Palestinian suicide bomber. Bill
Tammeus of the Kansas City Star takes
on the same task from a Christian perspective.
His subjects of analysis: Hill,
Roy Moore and Osama bin Laden. An effort to
tie this kind of "intoxication" or certainty
to theology was made in this early
TRC post.
"Supply Side Jesus"
Via Alabamian Michael Bowen, who has closed down
A
Minority of One (still good archives on tax
reform) and joined Pen at Gutless
Pacifist, comes Al Franken's biting cartoon
satire, "Supply
Side Jesus." For Franken's perspective
on Bush's (and his own) religiosity, check
this out.
Calling the "Raving Atheist"
I have not seen this
story discussed yet by the Raving Atheist.
Consider it a peace
offering.
Obscure Bible Passage of the Day: Jeremiah
17:1
You will be in the right, O Lord, when I lay
charges against you; but let me put my case
to you. Why does the way of the guilty prosper_
Why do all who are treacherous thrive_ (NRSV)
Comment
Jeremiah soberly asked why do the guilty prosper
in a world created and sustained by a just God.
Feedback
Comment
Home
Friday, September 19,
2003
The Male Problematic
Maybe it's just me, but I've been seeing more
and more criticism of the Instapundit, Glenn
Reynolds. I saw something on his MSNBC
site (scroll down to 9/15) that has moved
me to join the chorus. Reynolds began by writing
a piece using the 9/11 anniversary to criticize
passivity in the face of violence. In a follow-up
piece, he begins by making the very reasonable
point that citizens have a responsibility to aid
the police in catching criminals. Then he responds
to a reader's letter with the following:
[I] do think that our society has exhibited
a pathological fear of and hostility toward
men and masculinity for several decades now.
It’s something that my wife, a psychologist,
often comments on in relation to the stereotypes
you see in both popular and professional discussions
of violence.
I’m not sure where that fear and hostility
comes from, though I suspect that the peace
movement’s stereotyping the military as
cartoonish figures of exaggerated masculinity
during the Vietnam era had something to do with
it. If you’re afraid that you might be
called a coward, after all, it pays to turn
cowardice into a virtue, and courage into a
vice.
Don Browning, whose work on "critical
familism" I have discussed before, also
thinks that our society--indeed the world--has
a problem with males, but it's far different from
the one about which Reynolds is concerned. He
finds the sources of this "male problematic"
not in the 60's with the hippies, peaceniks and
feminists that are so distasteful to the Instapundit,
but in the impact of modernity on the family and
gender roles.
Around the world, men are becoming less and less
likely to remain connected to the children they
have fathered. Whether this is taking place in
advanced industrialized countries or in third
world nations the results are the same: increased
rates of poverty among children and their mothers,
the spread of disease, including HIV/AIDS and
increased crime. The ancient bond between the
father, his child and its mother is breaking down.
In Marriage
and Modernization: How Globalization Threatens
Marriage and What to Do about It, Browning
develops the history of marriage, especially as
it related to religious practices. Christianity
first appeared in a Greco-Roman world dominated
by an "honor-shame" code of ethics:
The public and political worlds of these two
cultures were controlled by free males who,
in turn, celebrate the male virtues of dominance,
agency, and courage. This is the male honor
code. This code signifies an agonistic culture
of challenge and riposte; when challenged, a
respectable male was to defend his honor with
verbal power, and if need be, physical aggression.
The male role with respect to women was that
of guardian, even jailer:
This code also entailed the male obligation
to protect and restrict the mobility of a man's
wife, mother, and sisters. To protect them,
males for the most part restricted women's movements
to the private domain of home, courtyard, family
life, and circumscribed ventures to the market.
Christianity offered in place of the honor-shame
code with its male dominance an ethic that emphasized
male servanthood. Jesus reversed virtue and vice
so that defense of honor was replaced by the turning
of the other cheek, wealth and power became dishonorable
and marriage became a covenant between two people
who were equal in the eyes of God. This radical
new approach to gender roles proved attractive
to women who converted to Christianity in large
numbers. Eventually, husbands were converted too
and the beneficial effects on family life of this
new concept of marriage included much higher birth
rates among Christian families. By the time of
Constantine, Christians constituted a majority
in the Roman Empire.
Long after the fall of the Empire, social and
economic forces began to disrupt the extended
patriarchal families of Europe. In the place of
this multi-generational grouping headed by the
paterfamilias came the conjugal family of husband,
wife and children living separately from other
family members. Without the influence and authority
of the paterfamilias and others in the family,
the Christian concept of marriage as a loving
covenant between two equals became even more critical
to holding father, mother and children together.
Peter Laslett marks the rise of the conjugal
family with its flexibility and mobility as one
of the pre-conditions for the emergence of market
capitalism and the modernity it brought. Ironically,
the very modernization and globalization made
possible by the conjugal family are now working
to destroy it by redefining gender roles and loosening
the ties between males and their children and
children's mothers:
[T]he great worldwide family transformations
wrought by the forces of modernization and globalization
have many symptoms and consequences, not the
least of which is a new pattern of male detachment
from families. Divorce, out-of-wedlock births,
the emerging culture of nonmarriage--all of
these and more end by removing huge numbers
of men from families, their children, and the
mothers of their children.
In the place of the Christian ethic of male responsiblity
and servanthood is a fundamentalist reaction to
the threats posed by modernity to masculinity:
Modernity threatens other male prerogatives
because it also beckons women into the market
and loosens tradittional restrictions on their
thoughts and actions. Modernity is a threat
to men; it makes women a threat as well. Such
dynamics are in the background of the great
confrontation between religious fundamentalism
of various kinds and the emerging dynamics of
modernization and globalization. This conflict,
often viewed as one between the United States
and Islamic fundamentalists, is more a conflict
beween modernity and those using religion to
form a dogmatic reaction to it.
Instapundit and his cheerleaders seem ready to
jump right past religious fundamentalism to return
to the honor-shame code of the Greeks and Romans.
In doing so, he seems to have more
in common with gangsta rappers than with Christians,
Jews or Muslims. In fact, if Reynolds wants to
find the real source for that reversal of virtue
and vice that offends him so much, he might look
to Jesus instead of Vietnam protesters.
Obscure Bible Passage of the Day: Matthew
5:38-42
"You have heard that it was said, "An
eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But
I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But
if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn
the other also; and if anyone wants to sue you
and take your coat, give your cloak as well;
and if anyone forces you to go one mile, go
also the second mile. Give to everyone who begs
from you, and do not refuse anyone who wants
to borrow from you."
Comment
Jesus would not qualify as a real man in Reynolds'
crowd.
Feedback
Comment
Home
Thursday, September 18,
2003
The Bible and Economics
I continue to believe that we will look back
in a few years on the Alabama
tax reform movement and see it as a watershed
event. The outcome last Tuesday was disappointing
but does not negate the fact that several very
important things have been accomplished by the
efforts of the Alabama reformers.
First, there has been a new attempt to forge
a coalition of white and black working class voters.
For progressives, this is the Holy Grail that
would radically transform Southern politics. A
variety of factors discussed
here before made this first try less than
successful, but an approach that appeals to the
religious convictions so prevalent in both groups
offers more hope than any other of which I'm aware.
Second, the effort and the response of progressives
and the press has sparked some discussion of how
secular
progressives and the
media respond to Christians who don't fit
a Christian Right stereotype. The far greater
attention given to the Judge Roy Moore circus
indicates that not everyone on the Left is comfortable
with a tradition of Christian involvement and
leadership in progressive movements that includes
Martin Luther King, Jr. and the Berrigans. That
issue is out in the open now so that it can be
dealt with.
Third, Susan
Pace Hamill has provided new energy for a
discussion of the nexus between the Bible and
economics. Many conservatives promote the idea
that the Bible
has nothing to say about economic policy.
Even on the Left, there has been reluctance to
discuss biblical views of political economy. Biblical
scholar Norman Gottwald traces part of this
hesitancy to fear:
A third inhibition is that if we dare to speak
about a system that needs radical overhaul,
it is likely to arouse the fear and hostility
of those who fund our institutions far more
than anything we may say about biblical interpretations
or single issues in the culture wars. To speak
up on issues that run against conventional consensus
or popular complacency -- issues that may require
radical reformist, anticapitalist, or socialist
critique -- and that endanger our professional
security may take considerable courage. Given
the high stakes, a prudential assessment may
conclude that whatever good we could accomplish
by our critique would be offset by the damage
to ourselves and the institutions we serve.
Gottwald is one who has repeatedly demonstrated
"considerable courage," but even he
notes the complexities involved in any effort
to distill "biblical" principles for
socio-economic policy and apply them to modern
economies and political states. Here are some
of the considerations to keep in mind:
The Bible was written over a period of
more than 1,000 years by writers living under
several different political economies, none
of which bear any similarity to our capitalist
system.
Gottwald describes four political economies
under which the biblical writers lived. The
oldest was a communitarian mode characterized
by a lack of a central government and a relatively
equal distribution of wealth and income. Partly
in response to external threats, a monarchy
was created to replace the communitarian system,
and this new mode of production with its taxation
of the poor and state-enforced debtor-creditor
relations created a dominant wealthy class while
it impoverished the peasantry. When Israel and
Judah were conquered by foreign powers, this
system remained essentially in place with foreign
administrators replacing the native ones. Finally,
the Roman Empire brought its slave-based mode
of production to the Levant.
All of these systems are very different from
our modern capitalist mode of production. Ancient
Israel and Judah under Rome knew nothing of
the multi-national corporation, representative
democracy, or stock markets. Applying ancient
biblical laws to our modern situation would
be absurd and dangerous. Distilling moral and
ethical principles from the biblical corpus
and applying them to this brave new world is
more defensible but very complicated.
The biblical writers disagreed about
what constituted an appropriate political economy
in their own time.
The prophets railed against the monarchy and
urged a return to the communitarian mode. Other
biblical writers sought to justify the monarchy
and identified the king as God's anointed and
even as his "son." The Sadducees urged
a policy of accommodation to the Romans--as
long as they retained their political and economic
status. In many ways, the Bible is a record
of debate about how God wants human beings to
live and work together.
Any argument developed from biblical
sources can only be expected to be persuasive
to those who recognize the value of those sources.
"The Bible says that..." cannot settle
any question outside of those communities that
accept the Bible as an important witness to
the faith with which they identify. Believers
who adopt a particular policy position because
they are persuaded that it is consistent with
their faith must recognize that arguments based
on other authority and evidence must be made
in the public square to convince those outside
of their faith traditions. This is not to say
that dialogue across faith traditions about
public policy is not valuable nor that religious
discourse should be excluded from the public
square, but only that the fundamentalist, "God
said it, that decides it," approach takes
us nowhere in our pluralistic culture.
Even with these caveats, the Alabama tax reform
movement has reminded us that discussions of the
Bible and economics should be taking place in
Christian communities. In discussing issues of
tax policy, income redistribution, aid to public
education and national health care--and often
arguing among ourselves about them--we will be
following in the tradition established by those
ancient writers. As Gottwald writes, indifference
is what lies outside the biblical tradition:
The notion of religious "neutrality"
toward economics, politics, and society is invalid
insofar as the Bible is claimed to support that
position. In fact, adherents of biblical religion
were active agents in altering modes of production.
Our discovery of this truth about our biblical
ancestors presents us with ample precedent as
Jews and Christians. In short, we are entirely
justified on biblical grounds to evaluate and
shape current political economy along lines
that appear to us valid on human and religious
grounds and at the same time are reasonably
attainable with the limits of the political-economic
present.
Anchor Bible Dictionary, "Sociology."
Jim Wallis believes that the Alabama effort was
an example of "faith being applied to issues
that Jesus talked about — like poor people.
It's
a sign of things to come." I think he's
right, and those Alabamians deserve our thanks.
Krugman and Alabama Tax Reform
I was pleased and a little amused to see that
Paul
Krugman brought up Alabama tax reform in his
interview with Kevin Drum. Kevin and I have had
a little correspondence about the tone and quantity
of CalPundit's coverage of the movement.
Obscure Bible Passage of the Day: Jeremiah
22: 13-17
Woe to him who builds his house by unrighteousness,
and his upper rooms by injustice; who makes
his neighbors work for nothing, and does not
give them their wages; who says, "I will
build myself a spacious house with large upper
rooms," and who cuts out windows for it,
paneling it with cedar, and painting it with
vermilion. Are you a king because you compete
in cedar_ Did not your father eat and drink
and do justice and righteousness_ Then it was
well with him. He judged the cause of the poor
and needy; then it was well. Is not this to
know me_ says the Lord. But your eyes and heart
are only on your dishonest gain, for shedding
innocent blood, and for practicing oppression
and violence. (NRSV)
Comment
Do you suppose G. W. Bush ever comes across this
passage in his daily Bible study. BTW, "father"
refers to the just king Josiah, not G. H. W. Bush.
Feedback
Comment
Home
Wednesday, September 17,
2003 [permanent
link]
Losing Life to Save It
In India, the BJP government that came to power
last year promised "one nation based on
one culture" with a future linked to its
Hindu heritage. The practical implications of
"one nation and one culture" is that
minority groups—including Christians—must
accept the Hindu way of life. "We want
all minorities to come into the Hindu mainstream,
only then can we build a powerful Hindu nation,"
says 24-year-old RSS cadet Vasantrao Munde.
"We should be proud of being Hindu. The
RSS teaches us that we are unique."
Anger against Christians stems from resentment
of allegedly "forced conversions" that
take place among the recipients of food, medicine,
clothing and other aid from Christian organizations.
Christian missionary actitvities have become
more controversial--and dangerous--in recent years
as culture clashes intensify around the world.
Franklin Graham was sharply
criticized by his fellow Evangelicals for
his announced intention to conduct proselytizing
activities in Iraq. Animosity between fundamentalist
Christians seeking converts and indigenous fundamentalists
battling to regain cultural purity and unity has
even engulfed Christians like Staines whose ministry
seems to have been mainly aimed at relieving physical
suffering rather than effecting spiritual transformation.
This horrible case is a reminder that answering
a deep spiritual call to serve others is not without
risks. It also forces us to acknowledge that the
dangers of fundamentalism are not limited to one
religion or culture. Graham Staines, in seeking
to save lives, lost his own and those of his two
little sons. "Greater
love hath no one than this."
Obscure Bible Passage of the Day: Luke 9:23-25
Then he said to them all, "If any want
to become my followers, let them deny themselves
and take up their cross daily and follow me.
For those who want to save their life will lose
it, and those who lose their life for my sake
will save it. What does it profit them if they
gain the whole world, but lose or forfeit themselves_"
(NRSV)
Comment
|