Men of Straw Go Down Easily, Mr. McLaren…
The Washington Post did a piece Sunday on Brian McLaren, “leading light” of the Emerging Church “conversation”. Here’s the link:
Evangelical Author Puts Progressive Spin on Traditional Faith
Look, I like some of what I hear coming out of the EC movement, and some of what I hear coming out of McLaren personally. I’ve read several of his books, and intend to read The Secret Message of Jesus (despite the ridiculous, over-hype name). But let’s look at one sentence from the article:
“When we present Jesus as a pro-war, anti-poor, anti-homosexual, anti-environment, pro-nuclear weapons authority figure draped in an American flag, I think we are making a travesty of the portrait of Jesus we find in the gospels,” McLaren said in a recent interview.
To this, I’d say to McLaren, “when we overspeak, when we resort to perjorative silliness, we ruin our credibility, and we are making a travesty of our objections.” Who, Brian, is presenting Jesus as “pro-war”? Nobody, sir, or at least nobody I’m aware of. Are there people who believe that war is a necessary evil in some circumstances? Sure—and my bet is that McLaren might as well, unless he’s taken the extreme pacifist position (one I can’t personally square with Scripture). Yes, I believe that the restraint of evil is a “just cause” for war, war undertaken as carefully and strategically as possible for the purpose of punishing evildoers and restraining evil. But does that mean I think Jesus is “pro-war”? Of course not; I’m certainly not “pro-war”.
“Anti-poor”? How silly of McLaren to even suggest that. When he uses this pejorative term, of whom could he possibly be speaking? Those of us who don’t believe in big government “solutions” to “help” the poor? Does that make us “anti-poor”? Only, apparently, in the mind of a man who seems to be more interested in throwing around provocative words than engaging in substantive dialogue. One wonders if he is familiar with Marvin Olasky’s The Tragedy of American Compassion, which details how far wrong we’ve gone in trying to help people, how so much of our “help” actually does them harm.
“Anti-homosexual” – Fair enough; there are some people who cross the line between hating the sin and hating the sinner. That said, I think that there are far less than Brian thinks that there are, that Brian and some in his camp (most notably Tony Campolo) jettison the Bible on this subject to a large degree, accept the “findings” of secularists, and then try to craft some impotent half-measured approach to a serious subject.
“Anti-environment”? Yep, that’s just what we’re doing, Brian; we believe that Jesus would have us trash our environment, pollute without conscience, destroy creation. Please.
“Pro-nuclear weapons authority figure draped in an American flag” – Well, as to the “pro-nuclear weapons” idea, didn’t we learn how well “peace through strength” works when we lived through the 1980′s? Wasn’t peace the goal? Wasn’t the downfall of an evil empire the goal? And didn’t it work, without a single nuclear weapon being fired? For the 10,000th time, listen carefully, as counter-intuitive as this might seem to some, we build nuclear weapons so that we don’t have to use nuclear weapons (and so we don’t have to use other weapons as often as we otherwise would). Is it ideal? Of course not. Do we do it for fun? No. We do it because we desire peace, but we recognize the reality of evil in the world that must be restrained, that peace can be maintained by causing the bad guys to think long and hard before they do bad things. We live in a sinful world; the folks in al Qaeda, and so many others, are intent on our destruction, and the destruction of peaceful people, and we do what we have to—nasty at times, unpleasant as it may be—for the express purpose of maintaining freedom, restraining evil, keeping the bad guys from doing unimaginable harm.
I don’t think that Jesus belongs draped in an American flag; Americans are sinners, America has national sins, America is led by flawed people (and that’ll be just as true—and in my mind, more so—if/when some of the favored politicians of the McLaren/Campolo/Wallis contingent come into greater power). Jesus isn’t an American, and to say, “America, right or wrong” is clearly wrong. And sure, there are some people, I’d agree with Brian on this point, who cross that line.
Down the page, McLaren
while not happy about widespread abortions, he added, “to just say ‘Okay, let’s pass laws about it’ seems to me to skip a number of important steps, like honest and open dialogue, persuasion and seeking to remove the conditions that make abortion so prevalent.”
Once again, I must ask, “who is saying (only, which I hope is what he means), ‘let’s (only) pass laws about it’?” Who is advocating legislation as the only solution to the problem of abortion? Once again, McLaren builds a straw man, and finds it easy to knock down (for my money, he does the same with homosexuality, deriding the fact that, in his mind, so many evangelicals want to make it a “black-and-white issue”…it both is “black-and-white”, in relation to the Bible’s teaching, and it’s not black-and-white, in relation to the question of how the entire subject ought to be approached in a pluralistic society. But I do grant him a point on this subject in that I think too many folks do seem to want to make most every issue relating to the subject into a black-and-white.).
I’m not ready to write McLaren off as a heretic; although a lot of what he says is pretty disconcerting, some of what he says is worth hearing. But the bottom line is that creating straw men does McLaren—or anyone, on whatever side of the debate—any credit.
This phrase comes from the 1978 "Jonestown massacre" in which most members of the Peoples Temple cult, blindly following their leader Jim Jones, committed suicide by drinking cyanide-laced Kool-Aid.
Osborne: A Contrarian's Guide to Knowing God
Schlossberg: Idols For Destruction
18 Responses to “Men of Straw Go Down Easily, Mr. McLaren…”
Albert Mohler, very influential SBC member, makes the argument that Jesus is pro-war on his own blog. It is a nuianced argument, but one that looks like Jesus is pro-war nonetheless.
I could make a point-by-point analysis of what Mr. McLaren is saying, but the bigger point is that conservative evangelical leaders have cuddled the Republican Party close for 2 decades now. They really haven’t established an area where they are separate, whether war, environment, homosexuality, etc. So it is probably unfair that Jesus gets tarred with the same brush as President Bush, certain leaders have worked hard to tie the two together.
You’ll have to excuse those that don’t see much of a difference. And applaud those like McLaren that are trying to pull Jesus out and above the political fray.
Expat Teacher ~ Sep 13, 2006 at 11:16 pm
I do applaud McLaren for certain things, but the point of my post, which you hardly addressed, is that McLaren harms his credibility by saying ridiculous things, by sloganeering instead of speaking clearly and charitably. A notable shortfall of McLaren’s that I did not mention is his seeming disingenuity as well; he has developed the extremely annoying habit, when called upon statements he has made, to say, in effect, “that’s not what I meant to say; how could you have gotten that from what I said? I didn’t mean that at all”. He’s done that enough times that the act is getting very tired, and I bet that, if I were to be able to personally confront him on these irresponsible statements, he’d back down in a similar way. I like Brian in certain ways, but his credibility has taken a major hit in my mind in the last 18 months or so.
Here, by the way, is Mohler’s main context, from his own pen:
For the Christian, the standard is already set and the goal is absolutely clear–we are to seek the peace.
That is categorically not “pro-war”. Later, he adds,
Based on biblical reasoning, the Just War tradition insists that war must be the last resort, after all reasonable alternatives have failed.
And later,
In the final analysis, the only justifiable war is defensive rather than offensive–it is undertaken to right a wrong, not to gain an advantage.
And,
War is a demonstration of the utter sinfulness of sin.
Now, perhaps in the world of the Brian McLarens, the fact that Mohler makes an argument for Just War, and for preemptive war under carefully-controlled conditions, makes him “pro-war”, though it confounds the life out of me how one can possibly read the above statements and make that characterization. In effect, then, if you’re not a pacifist—and Mohler makes a compelling case as to why pacifism is not the moral high ground it claims to be—then you’re “pro-war”. Under that twisted-to-the-point-of-silly definition, I suppose I’m “pro-war”.
And I’d argue that Jesus is too…
Byron ~ Sep 14, 2006 at 3:07 pm
Ex, I will add another comment, which is to say that I do agree, to a significant degree, that many evangelical leaders have snuggled up too closely to the GOP, too easily swallowing some things from it that ought never to have been swallowed, looking too uncritically at its agenda, etc. Though that’s not really the point of my post, I do concur that Jesus ought not be co-opted by a political party.
Byron ~ Sep 14, 2006 at 8:11 pm
Byron,
I can’t speak for McLaren about what he would say or wouldn’t say. All I know is that he was quoted in a soundbite that fit nicely into the WaPo article.
About the Mohler article. You are right. It is very nuianced with a few disclaimers that Christians are for peace, but the tone of the article and the final analysis is that Christians should be for the War against Iraq. It is especially damming when Mohler’s own words can be used against him.
Mohler says “the only justifiable war is defensive rather than offensive–it is undertaken to right a wrong, not to gain an advantage.” and yet he finishes with ” war is the worst option imaginable, until it is the only option left.” It certainly seems like Jesus (according to Mohler’s interpretation) is pro-war. Now factor in that our War against Iraq was offensive and for advantage, and Jesus (as Mohler portrayed him) not only looks like he is pro-war, but also stupid.
McLaren was clearly hitting out at the intense lovefest between Christians and Republicans. If you’d like, I can find examples of where prominent Christians have made Jesus “anti-poor, anti-homosexual, anti-environment, pro-nuclear weapons authority figure draped in an American flag,” for the sake of the Republican agenda. But I don’t think you need me to. You know that McLaren’s point is valid.
Expat Teacher ~ Sep 15, 2006 at 12:02 am
One, Mohler does not make the point that Jesus is “pro-war”, nor does he make the point that a preemptive war is ever justifiable (as it is by it’s very definition not fitting even the highly questionable conditions for being a Just War).
Two, I don’t understand what the Emergent Church is and I’ve asked many times for it to be explained and it never gets explained, so I tend not to pay it much attention.
Three, evangelical leaders in America have been tying themselves closely with the Republican party for years – so close that the lines do get blurred. The Republican party has then turned around and in general been exactly what McLaren said there about being “pro-war, anti-poor, anti-homosexual, anti-environment, pro-nuclear weapons authority figure draped in an American flag”. And if you don’t like those descriptors then please work harder on changing your party’s agenda so they spend 1/1000th of the time working on how to help the poor instead of how to get more tax cuts for multi-miillionaires (and the same with legislation to protect the environment instead of deals with big businesses to use it solely for profit and the same with fighting against real threats to marriage like violent abuse and infidelity instead of just legislating against homosexuals, etc.).
Four, your whole argument with McLaren about abortion is confusing. You are trying to take a stand against him by admitting that he’s right when he says there is a lot more to the issue than making it black and white and by admitting he’s right when he says too many people are making it just a black and white issue. I don’t understand what point, if any, you’re trying to make there.
gurufrisbee ~ Sep 15, 2006 at 9:28 am
Gu, I’ll address your concerns first, and then, toward the end, address Ex’s.
First, as to the Emerging Church, let me offer you a couple of suggestions. Dan Kimball represents, to my way of thinking, something of the BEST of EC thinking, and he patiently explains the whole concept of the EC in his book entitled, plainly, THE EMERGING CHURCH. I think it’s excellent reading and would be a good primer for you so that you can get your questions answered. D.A. Carson wrote a good book critiquing the EC, entitled BECOMING CONVERSANT WITH THE EMERGING CHURCH; this is a good counterbalance. Mark Driscoll wrote a book I haven’t read yet, but it’s called, I think, RADICAL REFORMISSION. Driscoll is an interesting bird, with both emerging sensibilities AND a commitment to evangelical Christian faith (a commitment that some, including Carson, question as to whether it exists in McLaren). So hopefully that is helpful if you really want to understand what the EC is! Now, to your concerns,
Right: Mohler does not make the point that Jesus is “pro-war”; I agree, of course. I do believe in Just War theory, do believe that we are engaged in a different type of conflict that calls for careful thinking. I’m still a bit on the fence with the whole “pre-emptive” thing, just to be honest with you.
Now, as to “my party’s agenda”, I’m not sure that that is possible, since I have not had any party affiliation for several years! When you jump to conclusions, it just doesn’t do anybody any good. You’d probably be quite surprised as to some of the positions I hold, by the way, and consider myself to be closer to Libertarianism in many respects than anything else, so I’m afraid I’ll have little ability to influence the Republican party. Yes, I do grant (as I did above) that evangelicals have too closely aligned themselves with the Republican party; we have no argument there.
But as to those descriptors, you, as most liberals do, offer nothing in the way of substance, but much in the way of sloganeering, which is my exact point. On this, I’ll answer you and Ex at the same time: sure, Ex, go ahead and give me those statements made by evangelical leaders that would place them as “anti-poor” or “anti-environment”; enlighten me! Perhaps you can find some that MIGHT qualify as “anti-homosexual”, but beyond taking a Biblical stance against the sin of homosexual practice, I’d be curious there as well, so here’s your opportunity: instead of taking up for the sloganeering of McLaren, instead prove that his words are NOT overspeak.
Here’s betting that you can’t.
What you might find, of course, are statements with which you’d disagree, or people who take a different approach to solving problems of the poor than is on the approved list of liberals. You guys seem to have reached conclusions about the only right way to deal with problems (typical lefty rhetoric about “tax cuts for millionnaires”—I’ll never be a millionnaire and I favor tax cuts—”legislation to protect the environment”, yada yada yada).
Hey, here’s one to really roil your socks…want to help the poor? FIGHT TO DO AWAY WITH THE MINIMUM WAGE. Yep, you heard me correctly. The minimum wage is understood correctly by most economists to HURT THE PEOPLE IT IS DESIGNED TO HELP. Some of the very people you ridicule as wanting to help only the multi-millionnaires are the ones who are against raising the minimum wage—which is a stance which HELPS poor people (and if you don’t understand why/how this is true, expand your mind and read someone from a different side of the fence than yours, who can explain with calm, rational facts why this is true instead of with Hillary Clinton class warfare rhetoric). Larry Elder, a black Libertarian, is a good place to start; his book TEN THINGS YOU CAN’T SAY IN AMERICA ought to be required reading.
Finally, you missed the argument of McLaren’s re “black and white”; he didn’t use that with reference to abortion, but rather with reference to homosexuality. I believe that “homosexuality” is far too broad an issue to engage in simplistic discussions about it. That’s where I agree with him, while at the same time believing that there are ASPECTS of that discussion that in themselves ARE “black and white” (for instance, there is no sound way to justify same-sex practice Biblically).
Whew…I’m plum tarred…
Byron ~ Sep 15, 2006 at 4:49 pm
By,
I don’t really care that much about the emergent church. I never hear about them except when they seem to self promote, so I’m really not sure why I should care.
I don’t understand what you are on the fence about being pre-emptive. The ‘war’ with Iraq was pre-emptive and the very nature a Just War is that you’ve exhausted all other peaceful options, which is obviously not the case if you are the one doing the attacking.
I apologize for assuming you were a Republican and attaching you to them. I wasn’t even thinking about you when I did that – the whole content of the comments here had already gone into a Democrat vs. Republican thing and I was just jumping in on that. I’m a bit confused why you feel you can try to hit me for supposedly jumping to the conclusion you were Republican and then follow that right up by labelling me as a “liberal” and generalizing me with what you think that entails.
As to your challenge for finding the statements of evangelical leaders that are “anti-poor” or “anti-environment”, I think some clarification is in order. We’ve already established that the evangelicals have gotten overly cozy with the Republicans and therefore you do get a lot of what one does representing the other. So when I pull out a quote like:
“Environmentalists are a socialist group of individuals that are the tool of the Democratic Party. I’m proud to say that they are my enemy.”
– Don Young (R – AK)
That’s pretty “anti-environment” and while it’s not by an evangelical leader, when the evangelical leaders support Young and that philosophy, it does make a strong connection. And Young is not alone. Congresswoman Helen Chenoweth (R-ID) – “Don’t let anything like trees in the Clearwater National Forest get in the way of providing jobs and fueling the economy, even if that means cutting down every last tree in the state.”
State rep. Casey Emerson (R-Bozeman):”I think there are some species that ought to be killed off to subdue the Earth.”
Also, it’s not always what you say as much as it is what you do. George W put together a budget that included cutting $450 million from EPA’s budget (including $300 million in a fund to improve sewage treatment plants), eliminated the Stateside Land and Water Conservation Fund, cut $350 million from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association’s budget, cut endangered species programs by $3 million, and cut $267 million from the Hanford nuclear waste disposal program. And yes, we could take the time to go through the voting records of all the Senators and Representatives and see where the Republicans time and time again add harmful riders to bills or lead the cause to vote against environmentally positive legislation like the Environmental Defenes Stop Mining Waste bill and the Global Warning/Clean Energy/Renewable Energy bill and the Land and Water Conservation bill and on and on. There are good reasons why there are stereotypes which produce sloganeering like this – IT’S TRUE!
So, what about the evangelical leaders? Well, first of all, who qualifies as that? James Dobson? Probably – he helped found the Interfaith Stewardship Alliance to make sure evangelicals had a voice against those who were concerned about things like global warming. Or does he not count because we don’t have his direct quotes. We do have his Family Research Counsel’s ratings on Senators and we can compare them with the ratings from the League of Conservation Voters. Sesssoin (Ala-R) – a 100% from Dobson, a 5% for LCV. Allard (Colo-R) a 100% from Dobson, a 0% from LCV. Craig (Id-R) – same as Allard. Allen (Virg-R) – same as them, too. Santorum (Penn-R) – same score from the LCV, but only 98.3% from Dobson. Get the theme?
I don’t have time to get into all the rest. I think it’s terrific that you are actually interested in trying to do something to potentially help the poor. The Republicans are not. And as long as the evangelicals stay ‘in bed’ with the Republicans, they won’t really be either.
And instead of waiting for “liberals” or whoever to come up with the specific proofs about these well established positions of the right (and too often then, the religious right), maybe it would be better if that side were coming up with proof against that, since those negatives are already well believed about them.
And the whole “anti-homosexual” position – it’s not really even debatable. Check out these quotes:
“Homosexuals are not monogamous. They want to destroy the institution of marriage. It will destroy marriage. It will destroy the Earth.”
“AIDS is not just God’s punishment for homosexuals; it is God’s punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals.”
“The perversion that follows homosexuality is bestiality and then human sacrifice and cannibalism.”
“AIDS is the wrath of a just God against homosexuals. To oppose it would be like an Israelite jumping in the Red Sea to save one of Pharoah’s chariottiers.”
“The male homosexual is the most dangerous predator that is allowed to walk free on the earth.”
“God Hates Fags!”
“Those who practice homosexuality should swiftly be put to death by the government. God emphatically condemns the practice of exchanging proper gender characteristics among men and women. God justly calls for the death-penalty for anyone who practices homosexuality.”
In my opinion, gays and lesbians should be put in some type of mental institute [sic] instead of having a law like this passed for them.”
Yeah, that’s from the likes of Jerry Falwell, Citizens for the Ten Commandments, James Dobson, Barbara Blewster (AZ legislator), Rev. Fred Phelps, Sam Woodgeard, and others from the religious right.
gurufrisbee ~ Sep 15, 2006 at 7:11 pm
Gu,
I honestly would encourage you to familiarize yourself at least a little bit with the EC, if only because it represents a cutting-edge movement (with definite pros and cons) that has become a fairly significant force in Christianity.
Let’s both back up a step. You assumed I was a Republican, when I’m not; I AM a conservative. I assumed you were a liberal—you sure SOUND like one—but if you don’t like the label, I’ll certainly not apply it to you; apologies. I will speak of liberals in general, then.
What you’re doing, Gu, is “guilt by association”. My initial post involved McLaren’s overspeak (and you engage in some as well; to say Republicans don’t care about the poor, or the environment, is to do so). McLaren is speaking of Christians doing those things, not Republicans, per se. Look, for every quote you pull out that a Republican makes that is overboard, you and I both know I could pull out one by a Democrat or a liberal that is at least equally as loony. John Dingell takes no sides between Hezbollah and Israel, for instance (I posted on that last month). Vast majority of Democrats must have cringed when he said that (let’s HOPE they did, anyway). It’s not fair for me to tar all liberals or Dems with that statement, any more than it’s fair for you to say, effectively, “since the Religious Right has climbed in bed with Republicans, we can take anything any Republican says and tar the RR with it”.
And before I leave that subject, c’mon, Gu, be fair; when we speak of the “Religious Right” (of which I do not consider myself a part, BTW), James Dobson and Jerry Falwell qualify, but who in the world are these other outfits, and to call Fred Phelps part of the RR is just plain unfair in the max. If you don’t know, you should, that Fred Phelps the Kook has picketed Falwell, and both Dobson and Falwell have publicly repudiated this clown, as has anyone with any credibility. Phelps is not RR, and your inclusion of him on the list makes suspect your inclusion of these other folks of whom I’ve (and I daresay most of my readers) never heard. That is not to say that Falwell, Dobson, Pat Robertson, and some others in the RR have not said some way-off-base things; they certainly have. But to lump Falwell and Dobson with these others in a catch-all “from the likes of” statement, when you’ve pulled some admittedly outlandish statements out, is just not fair.
As to Bush’s budget, you’ve again employed a typical liberal defense, whether you ARE one or not. Because Bush cut the budget in some areas of the EPA, he’s against the environment. That reasoning fails the basic laws of logic. It assumes that all of the current funding of the EPA is valuable/needed to protect the environment. Bush gets bashed (rightly!) because he has allowed the budget to get out of hand, but then when he cuts anything (besides the military), he gets bashed for “cutting a critical government service”. Hogwash. There are about a zillion government programs that OUGHT to be cut. Perhaps the items you cite were worthless in the first place, or the need for them had diminished, or what have you—but of course I’d never trust an environmentalist to say that, because the mentality is, again, any time you cut anything, you’re “anti-environment”. Environmentalists (well, let’s say the “radical environmentalist movement”; there are plenty of sensible people concerned with the environment) are typical liberals, whether you are or not: they often fail to understand TRADEOFFS (read Thomas Sowell’s THE VISION OF THE ANOINTED for a brilliant explanation). If you spend 10 million on one project, that’s 10 million you don’t have to spend on another. If you pass an environmental law, it will have a certain impact on businesses, individuals, the economy, etc. Of course there are some laws that should be on the books to protect the environment; no one argues that. Nobody in either party wants dirty air or polluted water. But to oversimplify the arguments to “he cut funding for this program or that” does not service to your point. No, Bush isn’t in bed with the radical environmentalists—and I’m thrilled for that.
You say,
And instead of waiting for “liberals†or whoever to come up with the specific proofs about these well established positions of the right (and too often then, the religious right), maybe it would be better if that side were coming up with proof against that, since those negatives are already well believed about them.
So, you’re saying that liberals can just throw around irresponsible, untrue statements without proof? No “specific proofs” needed; that’s an interesting standard. Maybe that’s why, given the liberal slant of the MSM which usually doesn’t challenge these, so many of these “negatives are already well believed”.
But the original point of my entire piece was that McLaren harms his credibility by throwing out these pejoratives, and by overspeaking significantly. And the irony is that I bet that, after he makes an irresponsible statement like this, it wouldn’t be difficult to find a McLaren statement lamenting the tone of civil discourse in our society.
Byron ~ Sep 16, 2006 at 9:23 am
Byron,
You and guru got quite the discussion going. I’ll only pop in to respond to the stuff you said up top.
Perception is reality. Mohler does a fine job of qualifying and quantifying the War in Iraq as a just war, but the nuiance is lost in the bigger discussion. Maybe unfair, but true. The bumper sticker version is that the SBC is for the War against Iraq.
As for the other items, I’ll go look, but perception is reality. A prominent Christian might not be against the enviroment, but a quote that says environmentalists are all pagan worshippers or the like gives the preception that Jesus is anti-environment.
And you are right, it is about methodology most of the time. And if one’s methodology for changing something is a tough love approach (i.e. have no minimum wage), it must have lots of love to not look just tough.
Finally, about the minimum wage specifically. You forgot to mention you needed the two handed economist. On one hand the the theory is that higher wages push low skilled workers out of work as businesses move to mechanize or use to technology to replace those (now more expensive) workers. It makes get sense in theory.
However on the other hand, there is no empirical evidence to support that theory. In fact, since America has introduced the minimum wage, unemployment among the low/semi-skilled workers has tracked the national unemployment rate. In fact, using the theory, places like Washington State and California should have legions of unemployed low/semi-skilled workers. Alabama and Kansas should have plenty of great jobs for low/semi-skilled workers. In fact, the opposite is true.
Dang those two handed economists!
Expat Teacher ~ Sep 16, 2006 at 3:59 pm
Now THAT, Ex, is an even-handed response; thank you for it (I’m holding my breath that I can get the same from your “colleague”…).
Not to put too fine a point on it, but would you not agree with me that there is a difference between being “pro-war”—which I doubt anyone is, per se, and supporting a particular, given war, as a “last resort”, a la Mohler? That’s really all I’m saying. I believe that war is always a tragic thing, and should be undertaken after all other means are exhausted, and then only under certain circumstances, and I’ll go so far as to say I am not certain that the war in Iraq qualifies! But that said, believing that under certain limited circumstances, war is the best of several poor options, doesn’t make a person “pro-war”, from my vantage point. See where I’m coming from?
Thank you further for agreeing that it is about methodology. This sloganeering that just labels people without offering substantive argument is just not good (when it comes from ANY camp). I honestly believe that conservative methodology, applied consistently, helps EVERYBODY (I truly believe that “compassionate conservative” is a redundancy). I may be right, and I may be wrong; that’s where we ought to analyze the substance of claims (as you attempted to do, to your credit!). But don’t label me as “anti-poor” or “anti-environment” or what have you, for instance, just because I happen to find substance lacking in much of the typical liberal approach to such problems, or because I truly believe the conservative approach to best help everyone. McLaren’s approach is not helpful in this regard.
Byron ~ Sep 16, 2006 at 8:53 pm
Byron,
About the “pro-war” comment. McLaren is clearly taking aim at the Iraq War. Sure Mohler makes a nuanced argument about a just war as a last result and I buy that argument. However, when it comes out that the Iraq War was anything but a last resort and Mohler and co still support the war, it makes Jesus look pro-war. Again, it may not be fair, but it is the perception and therefore reality.
I do think it is fair to label someone based on their methodology. You could fairly label me anti-rich because I support a higher tax on the richest Americans. I don’t think there is anything unfair about that. So I do think that labels like anti-environment, pro-war, anti-poor, anti-homosexual, pro-nuclear weapons are fair labels if the methodology behind them supports that conclusion.
For example, when Christians make statements against homosexuals in the “pro-family” language, it implies that homosexuals can’t be families and that they are inherently against families. This is an anti-homosexual statement.
So while you may believe Compassionate Conservative is a redundancy, most Americans don’t. That is why George Bush had to run with that adjective. Unfortunately, his stewardship of the conservative cause has created untold damage to both the cause and the perception that conservatives can be compassionate. (For the record I think individual conservatives are compassionate, but I don’t see a lot of room in the complete conservative philosophy for compassion)
So two quotes now. I’ve got the pro-war and anti-homosexual one. When I’ve got some time tomorrow I’ll look for Jesus as the pro-nuke, anti-environment, and anti-poor advocate.
Expat Teacher ~ Sep 18, 2006 at 11:38 am
Update, in case anyone is interested: Matt (Gurufrisbee) and I are currently engaged in a quite respectful email conversation in which we are making great headway in clearing up some personal “air” between us that perhaps has come thru in these posts. I appreciate his taking the initiative in emailing me about it; I have removed both of our last posts, wherein we each got a little snarky, I guess, and we are, as brothers in Christ, working out our interpersonal differences. Amazing what a little honest, humble conversation will do! Anyway, just thought any readers of this thread would be interested to know that.
Byron ~ Sep 22, 2006 at 10:45 am
Byron,
That is excellent news. Praise the Lord for the coming together! We need more of this in our country today.
BTW- I found a good quote from Richard Land that certainly makes Jesus look anti-enviroment. He is quoted as saying, “Among American evangelicals there is no consensus about the causes of global warming, severity of global warming, or the solutions to global warming.” Which, of course, to the non-evangelical looks like this man is crazy because evangelicals aren’t in a position to make judgments about global warming. That is what scientists do.
If you are further interested, the SBC passed an ‘anti-environmental’ resolution in June. It is nuanced, but basically it says that “Environmentalism is threatening to become a wedge issue to divide the evangelical community and further distract its members from the priority of the Great Commission”. Again that looks stupid to the non-evangelical because the SBC and other organizations pursue all sorts of stuff that isn’t related to the Great Commission (anti-gay rights, anti-abortion, anti-woman’s equality, etc)
So I’m down to two more. The anti-poor one should be easy. I’ll post it when I come across it. I’m sure someone will say something this election season, but I might have to throw in the towel on pro-nuke. I’ve done a little googling and haven’t found anything yet. If that is the case, I’ll concede the Mr. McLaren has spoken in hyperbole, but only just.
Expat Teacher ~ Sep 23, 2006 at 12:45 am
In case you were worried that Byron actually just torpedoed my computer and said we were working things as a cover – I’m here to confirm that it is going just like he described. I’m doubtful that I’ll be swinging him over to my side on some issues, but I’m happy to report that we’re likely looking at friendship with good communication and that’s a lot.
gurufrisbee ~ Sep 26, 2006 at 2:33 pm
Ex,
“Anti-environmental” would seem to be in the eye of the beholder. Here is the first part of their “resolveds”, verbatim (you call the statement “nuanced”, which is a pretty accurate description, I’ll agree, but I wouldn’t call it “anti-environmental”):
be it
RESOLVED, That the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Greensboro, North Carolina, June 13-14, 2006, renew our commitment to God’s command to exercise caring stewardship and wise dominion over the creation (Genesis 1:28); and be it further
RESOLVED, That we urge all Southern Baptists toward the conservation and preservation of our natural resources for future generations while respecting ownership and property rights; and be it further
RESOLVED, That we encourage public policy and private enterprise efforts that seek to improve the environment based on sound scientific and technological research
After this, of course, they take a stance against what they call “extreme environmental groups”, which is a bit vague, I’ll concede, if you’ll concede that there do exist at least SOME groups that fit the term; fair enough?
I will concede that you make a pretty good point about the fact that the SBC does take strong stances on other things that are only tangentially-related to the Great Commission; that seems fair enough. And I hear what you’re saying about Land as well; although the statement is true enough, some would certainly puzzle over it for the reasons you suggest.
Still, I suppose that we have a bit of a difference when it comes to the entire term “anti-environment”. To me, a person who is “anti-environment” has, at best, a blithe unconcern for much of anything environmental; i.e., this person would be indifferent at best to pollution, climate change, etc. Call the SBC statement “nuanced” if you will, but unless you want to read things into it that I don’t see there, the plain wording of the resolution, while not satisfying card-carrying members of the Sierra Club, I’m sure, seems like a balanced and sensible approach to the question of the environment. We care for the environment; we don’t fall for every way-out thing that comes along, but we do act upon sound scientific research; we respect property rights.
Sounds reasonable to me!
Byron ~ Oct 3, 2006 at 1:01 pm
I think that while some might see that stance as “reasonable”, others (who do not consider themselves in any way, shape, or form to be “extreme”), do recognize that the general condition of the environment is getting worse and worse and not only are we in serious need of a lot of real action to ensure health and vitality of the environment and all who depend on it for survival (which does include humans) but also that it is our charge from God to do a whole lot more conservation and protection than we are doing and then we have been doing. And the environment is like the high dive – either you go for it or you don’t and even if you are standing on the edge, being very watchful and informed about the dive, you still aren’t diving. And while we stand by and watch, the environment gets worse and worse, so not doing anything more than passing virtually meaningless resolutions is actually not making the environment better – and that is allowing it to keep getting worse. I was the first one to find it offensive and wrong when Bush threw out that ‘If you aren’t with us, you’re against us’ garbage, but for the environment if you aren’t working to actually make it better, you really are allowing it to keep getting worse and that doesn’t seem off base to classify as “anti-environment”.
gurufrisbee ~ Oct 4, 2006 at 10:10 am
This is a serious question, Matt: is the environment really getting worse and worse? Global warming does seem to be taking place; I think that that fact seems hard to argue, although as I said, I’m not sure that that is more than a cyclical thing (many of us are old enough to remember the fear of the early 70′s—I sure am/do!—that the earth was going into a new Ice Age). But leaving that issue aside, in THIS country, at least, isn’t the environment in a lot better shape than it was, say, in the 1970s? The Cuyahoga River hasn’t caught fire lately (remember that?), and a lot of effort has taken place to clean things up, to fine polluters, etc.
Yes, I do think that there are some serious global pollution issues, particularly in some of the emerging countries of the world, but honestly, and this is a serious question, what about the environment (again leaving global warming as a separate issue) in this country would you say is getting worse?
Byron ~ Oct 4, 2006 at 10:19 am
Byron,
You’re right – there have been many issues that have been improved, but there really is not as much “cleaning up” efforts going on as there are “messing it up at a slower rate” efforts. This applies to most issues with landfills, water pollution, air pollution, conservation of plants and animals and natural habitats – the strong effort for the last couple decades has turned into “let’s only release this smaller percentage of pollutants into the environment than what we used to do”. And that is progress from where it was, but ultimately what gets something clean – actually cleaning it or just dumping less gunk on it each day than what you used to dump on it? And I know we can’t reasonably expect to totally stop this – everyone is not going to give up their automobiles or stop dumping junk in their sink and shower drains and all that. But to do the CLEANING to counteract those things it takes a whole lot of money and effort that most people these days don’t seem willing to do. If you have a big ten gallon glass jar and every day you dump a cup of dye into it you will be both filling the jar and staining it at the same time. If you then cut back to only dropping a tablespoon of dye in it each day, you’ll make it take longer to completely fill and stain the inside of the jar, but you aren’t really making it better. To make it better you have to actually stop and remove the dye from the jar and then use the necessary treatments and effort to clean the stains from the jar. That takes time and money. And yes, then you’ll go right back to dumping more dye in the jar, but at least you can.
gurufrisbee ~ Oct 4, 2006 at 2:09 pm