the tad delay lexicon: the words i use that bring lots of confusion on the blog

My wife and I were discussing some of the misunderstandings people take with my blog. She pointed out that a lot of people may think they disagree with me on something, when really they just misunderstand the terminology I use. It’s true. I try to use terms as they are used in academia or good media, but that very often that is greatly different common parlance. So, in hopes of clearing up some confusion, here’s come explaination and where I stand. And although this is a hefty post already, if there is a word I use a lot that might need some clarification, let me know. Here is the Tad Delay lexicon for now:

Atonement

Atonement refers to how exactly the Christ made our peace with God, and is literally a running together of three English words (at-one-ment). It was created by early English translators when no appropriate word could be found for the mystery of what the Incarnation was all about. The most common understanding of atonement in Evangelicalism today is the Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA) view, ubiquitous to the point that few Evangelicals have heard anything else. Other versions I may refer to are the Christus Victor, Moral Influence, or Ransom theories. There are many more theories on how Christ’s death saves us- 30-50 theories that I am aware of, though most can be grouped under one of four 4-6 main theories. It is my view that arguments on atonement are esoteric and internecine, and though they can have important implications, differing views of atonement are not worth breaking fellowship over (as is a growing trend in Evangelicalism today). It is important to keep in mind that Scripture does not give us a simple atonement theory to rule them all and one theory to bind them, so we should approach this heated topic with faith and intellect, but still lightly.

Atonement’s most popular theory: Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA)

PSA can be summed up as the view that in order for God to be forgiving and just, He required a perfect sacrifice to transmitigate our punishment though sacrificial death. In this view, rather than forgiving sin totally (PSA says this would be unjust or imperfect), our sin is rather transferred to Jesus, and his one sinless sacrifice creates an unbalance such that all people can be forgiven (with the caveat that they ask or “accept” this offering). Though based loosely on a metaphor of sacrifice writers used in Romans 3 and Hebrews, this view is not taught plainly in Scripture as the singular way that Christ is meant to save us. The PSA theory has its roots much more largely in the work of St. Anselm of Canterbury in the 12^th century and the reformers of the 16^th century. As it was built up by the reformers, it is no wonder that most Protestants have heard no other view, as their sect was birthed in this view (it seems only natural to mistakenly assume this has been the normal view of Christ since the earliest church). It my perspective that this is not an accurate or helpful view of God at all, and limits God to being unable to simple forgive because of justice laws that he must submit himself to (and why not worship the justice laws if even God has to submit himself to them?). I certainly view atonement as substitutionary in some sense, but much more in the metaphorical sense I feel scripture communicates it as and less in the technical vein of believing Christ literally took our sins (as if sins are items able to be taken) because God was unable to forgive without a sacrifice. Taking such a hard-line and clear-cut view of atonement is liberal and unorthodox in the worst sense of the words, and absolutely belittling of God.

Conservatives and Liberals

Here we go. Conservative and liberal in politics means something different from when used in religion, which again means something different from use as social groupings. I’m very interested in politics, but I’m much more interested in sociology. Hence, when I speak of conservatives and liberals I am thinking of them as social groups first and foremost, and political or theological theories secondly. As we all know (and yes, I know this is far oversimplified) conservatives hold a time in the past as ideal, while liberals assume that ideals are not yet reached but should be driven towards. I think of it as the difference between Plato (past ideals) and Aristotle (futurist ideals), a classic philosophical smack-down between two brilliant thinkers who really had much more to agree upon than we like to think (much like our political debates today).

Conservatives and Liberals in Politics

Politically, I don’t care much for either label, and here’s why: given similar sets of information, the two sides will nearly always agree so far as I can tell. Liberals and conservatives can each look to each other’s founding idealists and say “I agree with that!” Modern ideologues can find immense common ground and shared perspective, which lends to the idea that we find our differences more in Republican or Democratic parties (which are very different in legislative direction) than in the ideals of founders of systems). This is not to say that the ideological systems have no real differences (they certainly do), but since my interest in politics is far more concerned with social movements than legislation, I just don’t care much for choosing a side to base political theory around. While I’m not a Democrat, I’ve come to view the Republican party with great suspicion recently. The Republican party (*at the national level*) is growing in the South, and only in the South. It is taking it’s shape as a regional party, and it’s pundits are leading the charge into garnering votes with half-truths and whole-lies in severely xenophobic and slanderous fashion as they cater to a demographic which seems surprisingly happy to lend its belief and vote to unfounded emotive rhetoric sans any real rationale to back propaganda. In addition, many of the things the Republican party has come to stand for are severely anti-Christian; a rush to war, defense of torture, resisting legislation lowering abortions in favor of appealing to an unreachable goal of repealing Roe v. Wade, a favor for the rich, a fierce loyalty to laissez-faire, a manipulation of patriotism for the party’s own ends, and most disturbing of all a claiming of God as its cheerleader. These things appall me in ways that, quite honestly, the Democrat party has not come close to. I’m a reserved, but still very hopeful fan of our current President, and I view him as very centrist in the conservative-liberal spectrum (although that is quite different from the Republican-Democrat spectrum, as there is less emphasis on political conservatism in the current Republican party). I am very happy he is a Christian and not a christianist, and represents very Biblical values on a range of issues unlike so many politicians we have seen as of late. Much confusion over the liberal and conservative terms comes from the fluidic way we use the terms. For example, though President Bush was far from ideologically conservative, we still call him that. Or consider how a judge who sticks very close to the law may seem liberal to some just because the judgments see far from what a Christianist may have desired. It is true that I find very little ideological common ground with national-level Republican ideals as the party stands now, although I will find a massive amount of common ground with a political conservative (or a political liberal for that matter).

Conservatives and Liberals in Theology

Theologically, conservatives and liberals are much more different. Conservative theologians tend to want to talk a lot of Bible; liberal theologians want to talk a lot of “how did we get the Bible?” Conservative Christians view liberal Christians as not caring for Scripture and the Gospel, while liberal Christians view conservatives as not caring about scholarship or action. There is truth in each claim. It is true that the average conservative pastor will know his Bible very well. It is also true that the average liberal pastor will be much more aware of the history and scholarship and problems behind those pages which the conservative tends to ignore. The modern conservative Christian movement arose (contrary to the myth that they conserve ideals of the early church) largely tied to the rise of fundamentalism in reaction to Darwinism, new political philosophies, and late 19^th and early 20^th century scholarship that was demolishing many conservatives faith. It is my opinion that what theological conservatives are very often conserving an ideal from 20^th century American Christianity (or 16^th century Protestant theology), which in the grand scheme of Christian theology is very often quite liberal in the sense of being new and unfounded in earlier Christian theology. Hence, people who view themselves as theologically conservative often take, unbeknownst to themselves, very progressive (or regressive, but nonetheless new in the grand scheme) positions. I think of myself as theologically post-liberal/conservative, that is, while I think there has been and will continue to be much to learn from both sides (I have been enriched by thinkers from both), we need to move beyond our reductionistic and modernist tendencies to pick sides and only learn from people who already believe like us.

Evangelical

Evangelical refers to a cultural group. It is not the same as little “e” evangelicals, who wish to spread their picture of reality to others. All Evangelicals are evangelical, but not all evangelicals are Evangelical. I’m an evangelical, but I’m not much of an Evangelical anymore. Big “E” Evangelicalism refers to people who are often fundamentalists, and as such tend to be fairly exclusive in doctrine. In a statistically significant bloc, Evangelicals tend to vote for Republicans, have similar views on social, economic, religious issues, listen to similar bands and political pundits, use similar verbiage, etc. Evangelicalism is a subset of Protestantism, which in turn is one sect of Christianity. Evangelicals as a whole tend to be unaware of church history and the emergence of doctrines, but highly (probably more than any other subset of Christianity) educated in the Bible.

Emergent Village, or big “E” Emergent.

Emergent Village, is a 501c3 non-profit group that networks emergent (little “e”) Christians, promotes conferences, and publishes books and audio for the furthering of the kingdom of God. Material produced by EV tends to be highly philosophically, culturally, Scripturally, and historically educated, which produces a feeling of suspect with Christians less so schooled. Emergent Village is a group that pushes a particular voice, and has helped many Christians along in their faith (myself included). That said, they do not speak for the broader emerging church, they do not speak for emergent Christians, and they do not speak for me. I have had the privilege of meeting and speaking with several of the founding members of EV, and I can tell you that they are Godly men with heart to see the kingdom of God come to earth. But unless you think the Acts 29 Network speaks authoritatively for all Calvinists or that the Family Research Counsel speaks for all Evangelicals, please understand that EV speaks for themselves, and does not try to do otherwise. Again, they do not speak for me.

emergent (little “e”), emerging, and Emergence

Confusing and hopeless, I know- I think so too. Actually, I think the whole debate over “are we emergent, Emergent, emerging, etc.?” is as internecine and ridiculous as it comes within the emerging Church today. Are we so self-absorbed within our emerging ghetto that we have to create new denominations over subtle nuances? But nevertheless, people do use the terms to mean different things, so let me try to explain. Little “e” emergent comes from an adjective borrowed from ecology, where new plants on the forest floor often emerge under straining conditions (such as the burning of a forest which becomes vital for new life). It is said that if you want to measure a forest’s vitality, you look not at the centuries old trees, but at the small saplings unnoticed underneath. The emergent conversation is approximately 30 years old, and though starting in Europe, has spread globally. Those insisting on the term “emerging” are generally Evangelicals none too interested in revisiting any doctrine but desiring to change the way they do church. Those preferring “emergent” tend to want to revisit doctrine and practice, and while emergents are often characterized as caring little for truth or orthodox doctrine, this view usually comes from (if not simple hearsay) a misunderstanding of church history and the history of beliefs. For example, since very few emergents are Calvinists, if you assume John Calvin was simply reclaiming the beliefs of the early church, you will see emergents as revisionists playing fast and loose with their theology. The “Great Emergence” is a term I borrow from Phyllis Tickle, and refers to a natural socio/theological shift that has been occurring on a 400 to 500 year interval in the Judeo-Christian tradition for at least 3000 years now. Though Emergent Village has taken a liking to Phyllis Tickle’s work, nobody is claiming that Emergent Village (the 501c3) is the next Protestant Reformation. The misunderstanding comes from the greatly frustrating fact that some variant of “emerge” is being used to describe, albeit related, a multitude of distinct groups, conversations, people, and movements.

Fundamentalism

Christian Fundamentalism is a specific historical term that arose out of ideological battles with liberal Christian scholars in the late 19^th and early 20^th century. **It is a specific word with a specific, lexical definition, and though I don’t hide my disdaine for fundamentalism, my using of the term does not mean “unthinking, more conserative than me, etc.” It has a particular meaning.** Through a series of councils, fundamentalists (called so because of the emphasis put on this list) declared that for one to be a true Christian, one had to hold to these fundamentals of the faith:

1. The Inerrancy of the Bible

2. The Virgin Birth and the Deity of Christ

3. Penal Substitutionary Atonement of our sins via Christ

4. Bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ after his crucifixion

5. The Second coming of Christ (generally including a rapture, tribulation, millennial reign, and then disembarking earth to go to a Heaven)

When I use the term fundamentalist I reference a social group still very much alive today, particularly within Evangelicalism. A Muslim or Jewish fundamentalist would have a differing list of core beliefs, but very similar undergirding ideology and perspective on the world. The term itself is in no way derogatory in itself, although it is true that I view fundamentalism as stemming largely from a unhealthy psychological worldview as well as a lack of education of one’s faith (due to perspectives considered essential which, in history, took time to develop, were not present in the early church, and have never been present in Scripture). I find Christian, Jewish, and Muslim fundamentalism to be a very dangerous thing, with a universal psyche element that seeks to purify a system by forcibly (and violently) removing those who will not become clones of the fundamentalist. Evangelicalism and Fundamentalism are not subsets of each other, but are highly related. Since in practice fundamentalism is one part belief and one part worldview, I would not fit the definition of Christian fundamentalist even if I held all 5 tenants to be true. On top of this, I cannot with integrity say I belief in several of those fundamentals, and have questions about one or two others. Therefore, a fundamentalist Christian will not view me as a Christian at all, and likely a false teacher.

Inerrant

When used in reference to Scripture, inerrant means literally without error. Though thousands of errors are known to exist in modern Bibles, an inerrantist presumes the earliest manuscripts were without error. Even if this could be known, there is still the problem that many of the books were not written down by the prophets who authored the content, as much of the Old Testament was not finally written down until it had passed through hundreds of years of oral tradition (in other words, those original manuscripts did not always exist at all). I have not been able to learn what an inerrantist believes in this case or if this fact is even acknowledged. Inerrancy seems universally tied to a Verbal Plenary view of inspiration, neither of which are claimed by a single book of the Bible, but each of which nonetheless have fierce adherents who see it as disrespectful to the Bible if you find an error in it. Believers in inerrancy often claim even such things as the six days of creation were literally a six day creation period, although other inerrantists will allow for a high level of allegory. The idea of Biblical inerrancy is something I find to be neither intellectually honest nor Biblical.

Infallible

This is a view of Scripture that used as a softer version of inspiration without total inerrancy. It is a view I generally sit pretty well with. Infallibility assumes that, while the Bible contains errors, it is nevertheless inspired by God and will not teach falsely. I still think it can be weak in its explanation. For one, Jesus clearly sets up examples where he points to Jewish beliefs that come, not from the Pharisees, but from the Scriptures themselves (“You have heard it said…”) and then offers a new and contradictory teaching instead of a reinterpretation (“But I tell you that…). In another example, regardless of the charge of misinterpretation, it is still true that reading the Bible leads to all sorts of differing beliefs, most of which will be false. I also have questions about portions of Scripture that seem simultaneously out of line with God’s character as generally presented, and also a propping up of a nation interest typical of ancient tribal mythologies (i.e. God telling Israelites to slaughter enemies). It is my opinion that an infallible view of Scripture, rather than total inerrancy, is required of a mature believer educated in the disturbing realities of a very good Book.

Kingdom of God

The Kingdom of God is anywhere God’s reign is spreading in a life or in the world at large. The prophets and poets have always pointed toward a day when this will be the case for all creation. Many assume that when you see the term Kingdom of God in Scripture, it means “Heaven, after I die” or “the church;” this is a profound and massively detrimental view of the Kingdom, and a misunderstanding of the core of Christ’s message. If you miss this point, you cannot understand the driving message of Christ.

Non-violence

Non-violence is an active alternative to non-resistant pacifism and sinful violence. I believe the way exulted by Jesus was always resisting the sinful and violent (meaning forceful, regardless of bloodshed) ways of the world. Anything bathed in violence is not of God, as taught by the Christ. Anything bathed in uncaring pacifism is also not of God. We are to be agents unsettled by injustice, and we are called to care deeply about fixing the world; but not through participating in the very systems of destructive sin that the world seeks to rectify itself with. So in the tradition of great thinkers like Martin Luther King Jr., Mohandas Ghandi, and the man they founded their thoughts on, Jesus Christ, we are not to lend ourselves to violence. Violence can mean bloodshed, but I use it more in the way of the philosophers, meaning any time were an outcome is forced or a detractor is harmed. Even shutting out a different viewpoint forcefully is a form of violence, and violence is a short path to heresy. I believe a follower of Christ must never put himself in a situation where he may be commanded by men to do violence, and should resist, if at all possible, using violence to solve a problem. There will always be great numbers of people in the world willing to solve problems with violence, but followers of Christ are specifically called to not be among that number.

Phenomenology

Phenomenology is a philosophical school interested in the way in which we construct our suppositions about reality, or about how multifaceted ideas or entities emerge with the confluence of independent yet interrelated memes. Though largely out of philosophical vogue today, it is still useful here, and I often use it interchangeably with little “e” emergence, as any idea emerges from a variety of sources to supplant a previous paradigm. For a religious example, we often assume that we believe something simply because “The Bible says it; I believe it; that settles it.” In reality, this is never the case, as the phenomena of a doctrine has arisen over much time, with many influences working independently yet interrelatedly, and has arrived in your psyche via particular vehicles. If any singular change were made to your history, the phenomenological construct by which you interpret a text (or the text itself, or the popular interpretation of that text) would be completely altered. Theologies always have an interesting phenomenological backdrop; though we beg to differ, theologies and beliefs are never simply handed to us by the gods.

Pro-life (or consistently pro-life)

This is one term out of the bunch which I use quite differently than the common media. I believe it is tradgic that so many pro-life (or anti-abortion) Christians are not pro-life across the board. I believe abortion is a serious tragedy. I also believe killing of any kind is sin: whether called capital punishment, terrorism, war on terrorism, or even hard-capitalism when it forces people into situations where killing is the easiest option (a la the 85% of abortions which are economically related). I feel that Christians should be pro-life, that is, regardless of how they view Roe v. Wade, we should be appalled, as Jesus said, with continuing the eye-for-eye, life-for-life practice of capital punishment. We should be appalled at when a political party resists legislation that would lower abortion rates (like easier health care or funding) just because we have a fiercer loyalty to capitalism (or a desire to garner voting blocs) than innocent lives. We should do as the early church universally did, and not participate in violence and a rush to war. We should not call abortion providers murders until we adopt every unwanted child, and if we have room left in our hearts to call people murderers afterwards, we should examine our hearts. We should be pro-life, but we should transcend the political niche and take a truly consistent ethic of being pro-life.

Religious Right/ Christianists

When I say Religious Right, I strictly mean socially conservative Christians who have aligned themselves with the Republican Party (though very often registered independent) and attempt to reform government towards a more (as they see it) Christ-like entity, in the same form as the early Puritans. With manipulative rhetoric, the various organizations of the Religious Right have convinced a large (though blessedly shrinking) percentage of the population that real-commander-in-chief (R) Jesus Christ would always vote Republican on [fill in whichever issue the party would you’re your support on today]. Christianist is a term I adopted from Andrew Sullivan to describe the kind of extremist Christians we are coming to see more of with the clash of religions and resurgence of marginalized fundamentalism. It is my view that christianists and much of the Religious Right’s work really is hurting the name of Christ and standing in the way of the Kingdom of God. Not only are the goals and political ideologies very often anti-Christ, so too are the means employed with a barrage of misinformation, slander, xenophobia, and the general promotion of mass-anger over concocted fears. I know most of them are well meaning, but don’t be surprised at my poking fun at the ridiculous religious right.

Religion and Christianity

Though we find it trendy and pithy to say otherwise, Christianity simply is a religion, as opposed to terms often offered in faux diametric opposition, such as “faith” or “relationship.” Christianity can be those things, but it is a religion too. So, when I say Christian, I use a broad latitude and refer to anyone claiming to be of the Christian faith. I find it fruitlessly internecine to argue about who is or is not a “real” Christian based on certain beliefs which differ from sect to sect. The Bible itself does not define the word Christian in such exacting terms, and so I try not to either (which in no way means I don’t think beliefs matter).

Third Way

A third way is a way between extremes. The world is full of dualities, and concordantly full of people, teams, political parties, etc., who will ask for you to see their conflict as an either/or. Do you want to be a liberal… or a conservative? Do you want to be a Christian… or a pagan? Do you want fight for the good guys… or let the bad guys win? These dualities are offered all the time. Some have somewhat correctly pointed out that I like to take a third way anytime there is a duality. While this is not strictly the case (I often take sides), and while this misunderstands what a third option is all about (not a mere moderation in the middle of two sides), it is true that I don’t like the “lesser of two evils.” I don’t think it’s very much like Jesus to take the lesser of two evils. When you are presented a duality of two poor options to take, do, or believe, I say find a third way altogether.

Verbal Plenary Inspiration

This is a technical doctrine that assumes Scripture was dictated word-for-word by God. It is one of many views on the inspiration of Scripture, although you wouldn’t know that from its popularity. “Verbal” refers to God speaking it; “Plenary” means the whole of the Bible; “Inspiration” means coming from God. It is the view that might say “Paul wrote Galatians, but it was if God was guiding the pen or giving him the words.” Though VPI has a few quite fierce proponents among educated Christians and some Orthodox Jews, it is generally considered an elementary view of Scripture that most people arrive at by default until further study is made. It is made further complicated by lack of original text sources, and the large degree of variation we see in the manuscripts we have. Though I view the Bible as an inspired work, I cannot with any personal integrity believe that it was written word for word from God. Most importantly (and a fact seldom acknowledged by VPI believers), the Bible never makes this type of claim for itself in the first place in any verse of any book.

—

is there anything else i needed to clear up?

Interviews from the Tea Party protesters in D.C.

This video is purely awesome.  I’ve long been a fan of those subversive politicos who sneak into the other side’s protest and give them a chance to convey their true thoughts on video… which gets YouTube’d to a world watching with sheer incredulity.  You can find them on the Left and Right.  But the recent rise in Obama-hate, stoked by Beck, Hannity, Rush, and Co. is, IMO, taking it to heights of half-truths unseen before.  And as I blogged the other day, notice just how many interviewed see this as a holy jihad from God (the one that begat Jesus, that is… not the one that chatted with Muhammad).  How could you get thousands upons thousands of people to travel thousands more miles to protest something they didn’t even Google first to fact check?  I’ll tell you:  it’s all about the pure awesomeness of Glenn Beck-style manipulation.  If only that power could be harnessed for good.

thoughts on shouting matches at health care debates, black muslim socialists in ties, xenophobic proselytization, and a Church that lost it’s clout

Somehow, I think this post got deleted.  So here it is again:

—-

The politicosphere is buzzing with so much angery passion. A question I haven’t been able to get off my mind as I watch the news, look out the window to see the Tea Party protest down the street, and creep on Facebook status updates is this: why so much anger for Barry Obama? (other than his choice of Bud Light at the Beer Summit- there’s just no excuse for that… were they out of Keystone?)

The questions has been stewing on my mind over the summer, watching the health care reform (or insurance reform, or whatever they call it next week) debate devolve to shouting matches. I can’t remember a time in my life where the political scene had as much angry rhetoric. And there’s no denying that the vitriol is chiefly coming from the right wing (although I completely understand the argument from the right that it is an erosion of [insert: healthcare, liberty, America, etc.] that raises this rhetoric from them). It’s just hard to be the underdog, feeling bullied, feeling like a helpless victim watching an assailant plunder your home. There’s a visceral breakdown of civility that happens in light of that feeling.

A friend of mine and I were discussing the outburst from Senator Joe Wilson the other night, and I haven’t stopped thinking about the question since: Why is there so much anger towards Barack Obama? Earlier that day, I heard both the leftist James Carville and the right-winger Rush Limbaugh strike a seldom-reached agreement, both saying Wilson represents the mainline of the Republican Party right now, rather than the fringe. My buddy commented, and I think I agree, that there is a certain xenophobia, essentially a fear of “otherness,” at work in the hearts of many against the President. I know that for some Americans, it really is an issue of race plain and simple. But I don’t think that that’s the issue for the great majority of Americans at all. Still, xenophobia can come in many forms. Some choose to believe he is not a one of us, not a natural born citizen. Therefore, he is not one of us. A recent poll showed that around a third of Americans still believe that Obama is Muslim, despite his personal testimony in print and repeated word. How many people believe he is a socialist or communist, many of whom cannot seem to articulate a clear definition of what either model is beyond “spreading the wealth”? How many people are starkly against health care reform whom nevertheless have never realized that “universal health care” and “socialized health care” are by no means synonymous terms, nor could they explain which is a quasi-subset of the other?

It’s misinformation, sure, I’ll allow that. Politicians and pundits can be pretty crafty. But there’s more to it than that, because there is misinformation spin coming from Democrats and Republicans. What is it that is driving this anger? I think it’s a fear of “the other,” because (whether based in fact or fantasy) Obama seems very other to many of us.

But the disappointing thing to me, the thing I cannot understand for a moment, is this: why are we Christians leading the charge in xenophobic vitriol? I have a few suspicions why:

1) I suspect for some Christians, this fear of a popular world leader plays into their interpretations of Revelation, presuming that while Obama might not be the anti-Christ they had hoped for, he may be moving us down that road. Regardless of how little Scripture props up this view (and who needs the Bible when you have 12 Left Behind novels?), this view of the end of times has became unbelievably popular in 20^th century Evangelicalism. Poor Obama, he plays right into the picture so many have of an anti-Christ, presumably because he likes to talk before brandishing the sword, and the Europeans like him (which is always bad).

2) I also suspect the anger stems from a type of semi-delusional giddiness we have displayed throughout the ages at the prospects of persecution. We take pride as we latch on to a verse that will tell us we will be seen as outsiders, and then try to be as loud about out oddness as possible. Regardless of any actual persecution, we have this victim complex that many take a personal fortitude in. Though psychologically unhealthy in the long run, it makes for a great defense mechanism in the short run (and an even greater voting mechanism).

3) For some it is simply the old standards. His position on abortion, homosexual civil unions, political party, economic policy, etc. No matter the race, religion, or origin of a politician, a differing position on the hot-button issues tends to make us see the politician as, if not evil himself, then at the very least a pawn of the devil. It is so endlessly tempting to assume a President is not Christian at all (if we ever thought for a moment he was) if he is pro-choice (well, he needs to say he’s pro-life).

4) Peacemaking is a delicate craft, and a largely untried one at that. We have a stark contrast between the ideals of Bush and Obama when it comes to dealing with hateful adversaries. The sword is tempting when you hold 50% of the swords in the world. Peacemaking without the sword is seldom tried by nations, and never by powers. This ideal of talking with enemies makes Obama profoundly strange to those of us Christians who have come to associate ourselves with America and her power. Profoundly strange, but more Christian than much of what we’ve seen in recent memory (like this, or that). Still, my fear is that Obama will give in to being less and less other as his time goes, giving into the call for dominance through the sword, or as one musician put it, putting “a boot up your ass, it’s the American way.” Another singer, whom I have such respect for (mp3 at the bottom of this blog post), contrasted this desire for dominance with the lines, “Peace by way of war is like purity by way of fornication.” While Obama is not the Messiah that Rush likes to call him, I’m willing to give talking a chance, even if it’s with people who would be so easy to give up as crazy, belligerent, America-hating fascists.

5) Lastly for my list, I think we Christians confuse our citizenship, and concordantly where our loyalty lies and who our enemies our. In his Epistle to the Romans, Paul essentially says that if it’s got flesh and blood on it, it’s not your enemy. People, according to the Scriptures, are not our enemy, whether we are talking about Obama, Osama, or just that guy that screwed you over that one time and you still can’t get over it. If we are Christians, I think it’s ok to call yourself an American citizen, sure, but that status takes a way, way, way backseat to our calling to love, live at peace with all men, not speak ill of people, etc. If we have two professing Christians (like you and Obama) and one is speaking all sorts of vitriol against him, then that’s really just immature. Men are not our enemies, and no country, person, or political party is worth the type of loyalty that our sinful side seems so eager to get out.

In case I’m not so clear, while this thought is somewhat a post about Obama, it’s really a post about a really sad thing in pop-American Christianity. We are so prone to anger towards someone, we misplace our loyalties, and we have destructive, victim complexes. So to everyone who thinks of themselves as Pro-Lifers, Pro-Choicers, Democrats or Republicans, pro-/anti-Obama, Capitalist or Socialist or Communist, pro-Gay marraige or pro-Traditional marriage, pro-Constitution, pro-Whatever-other-stances, or simply pro-America… be careful.

You may have a delusion at best, or at worst, an idol.

Derek Webb, My Enemies Are Men Like Me

My Enemies Are Men Like Me

i have come to give you life
and to show you how to live it
i have come to make things right
to heal their ears and show you how to forgive them

because i would rather die
i would rather die
i would rather die
than to take your life

how can i kill the ones i’m supposed to love?
my enemies are men like me
i will protest the sword if it’s not wielded well
my enemies are men like me

peace by way of war is like purity by way of fornication
it’s like telling someone murder is wrong
and then showing them by way of execution

when justice is bought and sold just like weapons of war
the ones who always pay are the poorest of the poor

I have a small confession to make about the right wing media bias… i love it. Don’t lynch me

I have a confession to make.  I like watching Fox News.  A lot.

I know, I know.  How could I, educated, gifted in seeing things from the perspective of the other, and certainly no hard-core right-winger, spend time out of my day with Hannity, O’Reilly, and Co.?  But yes, a good 4 times out of 5, if I have to turn on the TV for my news, I almost always turn to Fox.  This is to be contrasted with my unchanging first choice for news when I log on the net for news, Huffingtonpost.com (with occasional deviations to Drudge or Andrew Sullivan).  But yes, for TV, it’s Fox.  I don’t know why exactly.  I think I find it more entertaining mostly.  Rather than turning on CNN and getting more balanced (i.e., bland) news, I get to see a whole cadre of pundits on Fox who no longer even seem to try to hide the bias.  It’s great.

But as of late, Fox and Co.’s shots at “the Left wing Media” is getting to me.  I understand that a lot of people think there is a massive bias in the media at large toward the left.  I even understand that there are studies that confirm this (although, fewer know of the respected studies that show quite the opposite).  And I understand that making it into a “us patriotic, fair-and-balanced, america-loving americans” versus the “america-hating liberal media conspiracy” makes for good ratings.  When you cater to the views of half the population, while other media outlets try to balance things out, you are bound to get ratings.  You are a right-wing chocolate in a world of centrist vanilla media.  So make everyone else the enemy, and you’ve got it made.  Say it enough and people won’t even question it anymore.

You can make pithy advertisements for tonight’s special, asking in a thirty second clip, “Barak Obama wants to reform health care… [queue ominous imagery of Nazi swaskticas] but does this mean he wants to eat your baby and send grandma to the ‘death panel’?  We report, you decide… Glenn Beck weighs in!”

But here’s what’s been catching my attention more than ever, what with O’Reilly, Hannity, and such insisting the media is in love with a certain closet-muslim terrorist President (?!), is how the Right wing pundits don’t seem to be aware that they are part of this thing called “the Media.”  O’Reilly will go on and on about being the biggest cable news show, and then with a straight face say that the Media is entirely in love with Obama and “the Democrat agenda.”  Well sir, when your team is the biggest in television news (controlling nearly half, I believe?), and add to that the Right’s effective domination of the radio waves, the grand total of “the Media” is no longer biased.  Because even if the entire rest of the media swung hard-core to the Left, you still balance it out.  Kudos for your great success, but keep in mind that you are still part of this thing called “the Media,” and you do bring your own slant to the whole thing.

That’s like the Religious Right complaining about being ostracized and marginalized by the political culture at large, while forgetting that they make up a massive, election-deciding voting bloc.

And maybe Fox, Rush, and other friends understand this and simply see it as there civic duty to subvert the rest.  If they do, could they at least drop the rhetoric about the entire media lusting over Obama?  Even if the entire media except Fox and talk radio was in bed with Obama (which is not even close to reality), then that still leaves about half that hate him and half that love him.  But what if they really don’t get that they are the balancer, swinging to the Right far enough that even the liberalist of evil liberal media could never make the whole of media an overall left-leaning entity.  As long as you are out there in force, speaking of the Media as entirely liberal, you can be sure that your presence makes it anything but.

you are an interesting specimen, but kudos for the cigar snobbery

And yes, I also love me some Rush Limbaugh.  He is unimaginably large and his ego is even larger.  And he seems really sharp and witty, which leads me to believe he probably doesn’t really buy into all the things he says (which his beloved Ditto-heads take hook, line, and sinker).  Is that guy even for real?

U2 goes green for Iran

U2 made a lot of commotion in religion-land a couple years ago when it started pushing the “Coexist” theme with the song “Sunday, Bloody Sunday.” Bono, the prophet from Dublin, is quite possibly the 4th member of the Trinity, and he knows it. He caught flack when in the breakdown of the song, he wrapped around his forehead a banner with the word “Coexist” (C for the Islamic cresent, X made to look like the Jewish Star of David, and the T for the cross of Christianity) and sund “Jesus, Jew, Mohammad, it’s true.. all sons of Abraham… father Abraham, look what you’ve done, you’ve pit your son against your son.”

People got worked up about it, of course. I don’t think he meant to sound syncrotistic, but that was the charge nonetheless. Religions are more than beliefs; they are cultures too. And these three religions happen to be responsible for an enormous amount of violence in the world today (especially the two on either end). I think the prophet from Dublin was calling for coexistance of people groups, rather than the charged syncrotisazion of all religions. Just my two cents.

“Sunday, Bloody Sunday” was about a religiously fueled skirmish between Protestants and Catholics that left a good number of people bleeding in the streets. Bono adapted the theme in light of the Christian/Jewish/Islamic violence after 9/11. And then this thing in Iran popped up on the radar.

I’ve been tracking this ordeal in Iran. Bono, in fact, has been calling me for advice on the matter, and I told him to do this:

And on Iran, I’m quite surprised the protest does seem to be flickering out. There’s been a lot of blood, but Mousavi is still alive (for now, at least). But Iran’s theocracy has been challenged in a severe way, and this is a novelty. They are on a course for change, and it is only a matter of time. It’s important to note though, that Israeli or US military action will have the blowback of empowering the hardliners, and likely secure the theocracy, undoing the good from this novel challenge to power. There may be no easy way to get around this fact, but if our leaders take us to war, I hope they keep this very much in mind.