Christianity v. Christianists?
I don't have too much to say this week (except that boy was I right that the feud ain't over, now we've even dragged the View into it -- see the New York Times and Time Magazine articles on my girls for more delightfully (or horrifically, take your pick) incendiary comments) ...
But I did rather belatedly see this article by Andrew Sullivan on the Time Magazine website, and thought I would post it since the readers of this blog might find it interesting. Do any of you feel excluded by the Religious Right from a PR standpoint or otherwise? What is the solution to the problem described in the essay from a political standpoint? From a religious standpoint? Is it even really a problem? It seems to me that the various types Sullivan describes exist just as often within churches as between them. Has this led to any rifts or splits within congregations in your experience?
I promise a more substantive post soon; in the meantime, help me out here.
But I did rather belatedly see this article by Andrew Sullivan on the Time Magazine website, and thought I would post it since the readers of this blog might find it interesting. Do any of you feel excluded by the Religious Right from a PR standpoint or otherwise? What is the solution to the problem described in the essay from a political standpoint? From a religious standpoint? Is it even really a problem? It seems to me that the various types Sullivan describes exist just as often within churches as between them. Has this led to any rifts or splits within congregations in your experience?
I promise a more substantive post soon; in the meantime, help me out here.
posted by Sandi | 8:46 AM
9 Comments:
Hi Whitney,
I got the album yesterday. I ended up buying three copies actually, one preorder on Amazon that I couldn't wait for, one at the record store across the street from my office, and one at Target so I could get presale tickets to the concert. I am officially a freak. Although I was this freakish in my fandom before all of this happened.
The album is definitely different from previous efforts -- less country, and they wrote all the songs this time. There are scattered references to "the Incident" on various songs. A lot of their former fans probably won't like that aspect. I think from what they said in the Time article that they don't necessarily want fans who turned in 2003 back now. I guess that's the flip side of my post last week about keeping people from getting their message out -- they may not want to get it out to everyone. I respect that just like I respect the decision of the owners of Chick-Fil-A not to open on Sundays. Even though I always crave C-F-A on Sunday and am like, damn, it's not open, I respect that there are values that mean more to them than money.
And, just musing here, the same principle applies on the other side of the fence. I thought Toby Keith's Angry American song was awful and certainly if I had ever considered listening to him that put the kibosh on it right then and there. No one talks about all the progressives that he offended, of course I guess they were never in his fan base to begin with. What's interesting is, as Natalie pointed out in the Time article, that there was this existing presumption at the time that just because they were a country act, that they were Republicans. I kind of knew just from listening to the first two albums that they weren't -- there was just too much feminist subtext for that to be likely.
Oh, and they were on David Letterman two nights ago and did just get to the music (there was no interview segment, they just performed). I think it was inevitable that the media coverage surrounding the album was going to be centered around what happened because that was the bigger story than that they just released a new album. That songs were written about it is expected since you always write about what's going on in your life at the time. So I guess at this point it would be impossible to separate the music and the Incident. Maybe next album ... :)
And regarding the Religious Right, I guess I meant do you all feel that they implicitly exclude you from their definition of Christian by implying that all Christians do (or should) share their political views? and that in response, the public perception of what a Christian is does not really include all Christians?
And then Sullivan said that the answer is not to create a religious Left, because he doesn't think Christianity should be identified with any particular political group. But that seems to beg a lot of questions, because if religion is about morality (which it is) and law and politics is about morality (which it is), then how do you separate your religion from your politics? But, if religions are by definition exclusive groups, then how do you not exclude other citizens who are not part of your religion, from your politics? All very difficult questions and way too much to think about at 8 p.m. (Geez, I'm old). :)
Wow. I should really respond to your last comment, Sandi. And I will, but I am WAY too tired right now to offer anything coherent. I just flew in from a sermon seminar in Detroit that was VERY provocative about this whole issue - how Christianity is actually political, etc.
The feature speaker was Stanley Hauerwas. He is something else (including far too intelligent for me). You guys do some google searches, etc. and see what you find about him.
My favorite quote came in a panel discussion when he said, "I'm sure George Bush is a sincere Christian, which just goes to show you how little sincerity has to do with being a Christian."
More later. I need to bounce lots of stuff off you guys and discuss a lot of the stuff I heard/thought about this week.
Uh-oh, my word verification is bgsgubtr. I'd love to here what Terry/Juvenal could do with that one!
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/americasbest/TIME/society.culture/pro.shauerwas.html
I don't remember how to make the link hot. Just copy & paste to read about Hauerwas.
if religion is about morality (which it is) and law and politics is about morality (which it is), then how do you separate your religion from your politics?
I don't separate my religion from my politics, but my religion puts boundaries around what I may do politically. As I've argued here before, I believe the morality of Christianity teaches one not to use the machinery of the state to enforce that morality on others. It teaches me to advocate principles that turn power politics on its head; the politics of powerlessness; the politics of humility; servant politics; golden rule politics. So I should advocate for fairness and the humane treatment of everyone. I should look out for others' political rights before I worry about looking after my own. I should help protect the powerless from the powerful, the poor from the wealthy, the small from the large.
My religion also teaches me to have a certain spirit in my dealings with other people, whether that's individually or as a community. For instance, I should not go to a community of diverse beliefs and say, "We must enact policy X because my religion teaches that X is necessary." That is disrespectful, ungracious, and self-absorbed. If I want others in my community to support policy X, I must humbly offer them reasons for it that will be meaningful to them; reasons that can we can discuss together peacefully -- i.e., without the discussion becoming a competition (or battle) of differing religious beliefs.
~~
As for your main question: needless to say, the RR does exclude me from their definition of Christianity. Of course, I don't think they're exactly shining exemplars of it, either.
Music-wise, I have no problem with musicians or other celebs expressing themselves politically. I do have a problem with celebrities ignorantly expressing themselves politically; don't use your place on the stage if you haven't done your homework.
(And as long as we're registering our musical tastes, I'm a fan of Jim White, Wilco, and Greg Brown, among others. The Chicks, not so much. I've liked some of their songs, but I wouldn't call myself a fan. Except for that darkheaded one. Emily, I think. Hubba hubba.)
Stanley Hauerwas
I'll be interested to hear what he had to say, Al. I'm not a fan, but he is thoughtful.
Juvenal,
Seriously. Start your own blog. You've written numerous excellent entries in various comment sections here, and it's too tedious for me to cut and paste every one of them. If you'll blog, I'll have easy access to all of them in one tidy spot. Your first two 'graphs above should be required reading for every Christian, regardless of where they fall on the political spectrum.
Sandi: I, too, am on the outside of the RR's definition of Christian, but it's OK with me. I chose to be excluded a long time ago.
Eh. Thanks, but I don't think blogging is for me. I'll give it a think, though.
Juvenal,
Excellent points on separation of church and state. Would that all people of faith felt the same way. That was sort of the response I was hoping for. I think it's really important for citizens to share common ground on the reasons for our policies.
Post a Comment
<< Home