The Ultimate Contradiction-in-Terms: Right-wing Christianity

by: Mike Lux

Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 13:30


I have done a lot of writing, in my blog posts and my book, about the historic differences between conservatives and progressives in political battles, but almost equally fascinating to me is that between conservative and progressive religious traditions. The exact same fault lines, most importantly in terms of individualism vs. community, play themselves out in theological debates which sound very much like our political debates- and indeed, a lot of the same people operate in both realms.

Glenn Beck and Jim Wallis got into this debate over the last few days, and because Jim actually knows something about the Bible, he easily won the debate. Beck's classic conspiracy-minded starting point- that because both Nazis and Communists have used the phrase "social justice", that any religion that uses the term must be bad too- has a similar logic to saying that if a really bad teacher said two plus two equals four, because he or she was a bad teacher it must be false. Or saying that if a politician you don't like says "God Bless America", then any politician who says that is terrible. But leaving aside Beck's incredibly stupid logic, the point he makes about "social justice" is in keeping with conservative ideology: it is all about a self-focused view of religion and politics that, like Beck's ideological hero Ayn Rand, proclaims selfishness as the ultimate virtue.

Conservative Christians manage to ignore the literally many hundreds of Biblical quotes about social justice by making Christianity a religion solely focused on one very selfish goal: whether they get into heaven or not. That's it, that is the entire goal and purpose and meaning of their faith. And because St. Paul argued that faith is more important than "works" (what you do good in the world), they think that believing a certain doctrine is the only thing that matters in terms of whether you make it into heaven or not. Since everything is about getting themselves to heaven, and the Earth will be destroyed soon in Armageddon anyway, nothing that happens here matters very much. The one thing that matters to their God is having more people worship Him, so they try to convert people, but all that other stuff Jesus and the Old Testament prophets and Moses and James and all those other folks in the Bible talked about in terms of kindness, mercy, forgiving debts, being your brother's keeper, helping the poor, and all that other liberal socialistic stuff just isn't much of a priority to them compared to: me getting to heaven, and (second most important) converting others to my God. These so-called "Christian" conservatives live in a state of paranoia that somewhere, somehow some dollar of their taxes might go to some undeserving poor person, ignoring the fact that Jesus' entire ministry was targeted to the "undeserving" poor.

Not all Christians think this way, of course. There is another kind of thinking about the Christian faith: one that actually takes what's written in the Bible (beyond the Book of Revelations) seriously. The Jewish Torah (for Christians, that's their Old Testament) and the Christian New Testament have a wide variety of ideas and voices in their pages. Written by scores of authors over a span of probably a couple thousand years, one of the things I love about the Bible is the wide range of beliefs and perspectives within it. A lot of fundamentalists are desperate to find ways to explain away the contradictions in the Bible, because they believe every word is inspired by God and it's all literally true, but in fact the authors of the Bible disagree on both the details of what actually happened and the interpretation and philosophy behind the events they write about. If you take the Bible seriously, you see the debates and differing perspectives. Some Biblical writers were more conservative in their thinking, and some were more progressive. But the most consistent and enduring theme that runs through virtually every book in the Bible is that we are expected to love and be kind to our neighbors, especially the poor, hurting, and oppressed of the earth.

From the God of Genesis punishing Cain for not being his brother's keeper to Nathan the prophet rebuking King David for taking from the poor; from the Psalms that over and over proclaim the need to help the poor, and condemn those who judges, government officials, and wealthy people who mistreat them, from the prophets like Isaiah and Amos who  deride those who engage in ritual sacrifice while refusing to help the oppressed (Isaiah I: "Cease to do evil. Learn to do good, search for justice, help the oppressed, be just to the orphan, plead for the widow.") to Jesus very first sermon proclaiming that he had come to "bring good news to the poor" and "liberty to the captives"- virtually every book of the Bible demands justice and mercy and community.

People who take the Bible seriously and respect its words, as opposed to being obsessed with whether they personally will get into heaven by following a certain kind of dogma, understand that community and compassion are in fact far more central to it than any specific metaphysical belief system. And that is what the Pat Robertsons, Glenn Becks, Sarah Palins, and the other false prophets of conservatism don't understand.

Mike Lux :: The Ultimate Contradiction-in-Terms: Right-wing Christianity

Tags: , , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Contradictions... (0.00 / 0)
..abound in right-wing/Christianist thought/belief and activity--starting from their Religion, and extending eveywhere for them.

Christianity is a faith defined by its contradictions: One Got that is three 'Gods', a Biblical prohibition against graven images (3rd commandment in most Bibles), but Crucifixes and portraits of Saints abounding in Churches.  Christianity being based on the teachings of love and tolerance by Christ, yet present activity based on fear and hate and intolerance.

Add to these ideas the old practice of Roman exceptionalism, wherein those in power are exempt from the rules promulgated and enforced on the masses, and you have the majority of the pieces to the puzzle that is Modern-day Christianity/Christianism.

It's as much a Political movement as an expression of Faith...a means to rationalize fear and intolerance among those whose lives are deeply split between what they want for themselves and what they want for those not related or friendly with them...  I'd pity them if I weren't afraid what they could do with their weaponry and intent...


Interesting sketch (0.00 / 0)
But I think in your effort to broadly compare different religions under the Christian name, I think you're doing a dis-service on both ends. Heck, you even conflate the Torah with the Old Testament - The Torah is the first 5 book of most Christian bibles; the entire Old Testament is closer to the Torah + the Haftarah - but even taking both of those, you only get portions of the Old Testament.

I also don't see the "consistent and enduring theme" you claim in Judges, 1 Kings, 2 Kings, or, say, Jonah, just to name a few books.

I think you need to concentrate on a smaller portion of your subject at a time.


"How To Read The Bible.... (0.00 / 0)
A Guide to Scripture, Then and Now"...is a terrific book by James L. Kugel, a rabbi who seems not to believe in an active god of any sort.  His book takes the Torah or Old Testment, book by book and chapter by chapter, and in detail, with ample sourcing, demonstrates the historical and cultural creation of the Bible, over about 1,200 years, explaining much of what is now taken by fundies as dictat as being actually a lot of historical accidents, explained by who was fighting whom, or what faction controlled the temple, and how changes in the control of the temple resulted in theological changes as the new guys put their stamp of authority on the inherited traditions.

This is highly recommended for anyone, believer or non-believer, seeking to understand the Bible and how it came to say what is written in it.

http://www.amazon.com/How-Read...


Ridiculous (4.00 / 2)
Nothing personal, but this is completely ridiculous.  What's wrong with Glenn Beck believing the point of religion is getting into Heaven, when that's what is written right there?  John 3:16 says "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

Yes, there are nice parts of the Bible.  There are also parts where God wipes out thousands of people or entire cities on a sheer whim.  What if someone on Earth slaughtered the children of Egypt because they were mad at Egypt's government?  They would be one of the worst criminals ever to live.  And there is no contradiction involved here, either.  Scripture clearly says, over and over again, that if you follow God you will be rewarded but if you don't you will be destroyed.  

There are passages about love, to be sure.  What is the Biblical definition of love?  "And this is love: that we walk in obedience to his commands" from Second John.  

Why shouldn't an authoritarian like Beck flock to religion?  Religion is inherently authoritarian; God's word is absolute law and his judgments final, with no appeal or amendment possible.  Why shouldn't bigots like Beck be drawn to Christianity?  The Bible is a bigoted book, clearly commanding against women, gays, and "servants".  There is no surprise that 75% of evangelicals voted for McCain over Obama.  

I feel for people who were brought up in and still trust a faith, only to find it clashes with what they value as adults.  But the answer isn't to pretend that religions aren't really saying what they are saying, and hope no one notices the bad parts ever again.  Religion is killing this country, and the sooner we get over it, the better.


Atheists can be no different than their conservative fundamentalist bretheren (4.00 / 1)
Notorious, spare us the "get over it" bit on religion. You, who has so much faith in your own brand of religion --theism -- need to quit with the disparaging arrogance that marks comments like yours.

I'm on your side politically and show a little fucking compassion to we "ignorant" liberals who believe in God and find meaning in our faith.

So tired of you types.


[ Parent ]
Wow, false equivalence, what a shock. (4.00 / 1)
Every time someone posts about religion we get some yahoo yelling "but atheists are just as bad!"

You know, when Richard Dawkins starts calling for book burnings, and  PZ Myers protests soldier's funerals because the deceased believed in a deity, then I'll concede a sort of equivalence.

Until then, it's just seems well, incorrect at the very least, and also, an irrelevant thing about which to start claiming lots of butt-hurt.

Not to mention- Where have the liberal religionists been all this time, when the crazies were taking over your churches and waving your dead god-on-a-stick in everyone's faces? What, were you guys taking a piss?


[ Parent ]
atheism is a faith against something (0.00 / 0)
That is not false equivalence.  That's just noting the obvious - you guys show the same fervor and arrogance about your stance AGAINST faith as those on the fundamentalist right do in SUPPORT of their faith.

I'm a liberal Episcopalian whose political actions for the last 10 years have been deeply grounded in my faith. My wife and I have led activist efforts and the local DFA in Pasadena for many of those years.  We've been more effective because of our faith and our willingness to continue our work wouldn't be there any longer were it not for that faith.

I, and many others have done our part to stand up against the bigoted, idol-worshiping brand of Christianity you so mistakenly critique as the source of all the world's problems. That's quite a broad brush you paint Christianity into - both of you.  There is a lot of good that comes out of the major faiths in the world, including Christianity.  Not the least of which are good people like myself and my wife working on YOUR side to better this country.

So back the fuck off!


[ Parent ]
Unusual view on Atheism (0.00 / 0)
I view atheism as not agreeing to any theology. I identify as an atheist.

In any event, while I personally may not agree with certain aspects of your religion (those details are really outside of the scope of this discussion), I wish you the best of luck in your political efforts, and I'm glad that you've found something that works well for you.

I think, however, that you might want to consider that Atheists might be diverse as well.


[ Parent ]
I agree (0.00 / 0)
Xanaqui,

I definitely see many shades of belief and non-belief. Atheists are more diverse than the two commenters above. Sorry I wasn't clear about that.

You show a compassion and respect for diversity those two didn't.  Thanks for sharing your thoughts :)


[ Parent ]
1 corinthians 13 (new world translation) (2.00 / 2)
If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels but do not have love, I have become a sounding (piece of) brass or a clashing cymbal. 2 And if I have the gift of prophesying and am aquainted with all the sacred secrets and all knowledge, and if I have all the faith so as to transplant mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3 And if I give all my belongings to feed others, and if I hand over my body, that I may boast, but do not have love, I am not profited at all. 4 Love is long-suffering and kind. Love is not jealous, it does not brag, does not get puffed up, 5 does not behave indecently, does not look for it's own interests, does not become provoked. It does not keep account of the injury. 6 It does not rejoice over unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth. 7 It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

8 Love never fails. But whether there are (gifts of ) prophesying, they will be done away with; whether there are tongues, they will cease; whether there is knowledge,  it will be done away with. 9 For we have partial knowledge and we prophesy partially; 10 but when that which is conplete arrives, that which is partial will be done away with. 11 When I was a babe, I used to speak as a babe; but now that I have become a man, I have done away with the (traits) of a babe. 12 For at present we see in a hazy outline by means of a metal mirror, but then it will be face to face. At present I know partially but then I shall know accurately even as I am accurately known. 13 Now, however, there remains faith, hope. love, these three; but the greatest of these is love.  

Government by organized money is just as dangerous as government by organized mob..... FDR


[ Parent ]
When I was a babe (0.00 / 0)
 When I was a babe, I used to speak as a babe; but now that I have become a man, I have done away with the (traits) of a babe.

Except gullibility.

Oh, and a blind adherence to stone age shepherd tribal custom.


[ Parent ]
A TR rating, willf? (0.00 / 0)
Seriously? You need to check your baggage at the door, man.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
No apologies (0.00 / 0)
Large chunks of copy & pasted bible-babble always makes my TR finger itchy.

You pray for me, and i'll think for you.


[ Parent ]
I will. (0.00 / 0)
I'll pray that you learn how to think.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
No apologies either (0.00 / 0)
My quoting the love verses was response to Notorious' singular quote from Second John, and the claim that represents the bible definition.

I believe the focus of Mike's post is correct; that the radical right twists christian texts to support their selfish agenda. And that this practice is detremintal to both government and Christianity.

The latest pole I am aware of shows that 77% of U.S. population self identifies as christian, so Mike explaigning the abuse of the bible (by the radical right) to advance their finantial holdings at the expense of the lower economic classes is politically relevent.

However, from my point of view, an open disdain for Christianity (as you display) is counter productive in a forum where we seek to gain consenses on issues we deem important enough for discussion and perhaps action. And worse with regard to the same U.S. population we want to persuade to our line of reasoning.

What can be gained by insulting the majority, especially on such a hot button issue as religion?

Government by organized money is just as dangerous as government by organized mob..... FDR


[ Parent ]
My angle is a little different (0.00 / 0)
I agree that the radical right uses religion to justify its hateful agenda, so my thinking is -- why should give them that power? Their moral authority is a sham, and entirely self-declared. So we should strip them of it every chance we get.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Agreed, moral authority through religion is a sham. (0.00 / 0)

So we should strip them of it every chance we get.

Agreed.


[ Parent ]
I have to agree (0.00 / 0)
I've got a real soft spot for progressive christianity, and there's plenty in its historical tradition to be proud of and inspired by.  But you're right, what the bible "really says" is entirely irrelevant to any discussion of morality, ethics, right and wrong.  (Other than being a source of literary references and allusions.)  "God" is the argument from authority fallacy writ Large.

That said, I don't want to discourage Mike or anyone else from making this argument or bringing this argument into politics.  (Neither do I want to discourage your kind of critique, N. P.A.T.)  We should all be more educated about what christianity is and what it isn't.  It's good to have this conversation.


[ Parent ]
why? (4.00 / 1)
We should all be more educated about what christianity is and what it isn't.

why? seriously. why do i care about the invisible friend in the sky? other than self-defense, which i recognize is real but hardly merits as much coverage as this subject gets. i mean, it's no big deal, it's as easily ignored as the other flavors of gossip and sectarian warfare around here (eg Your Fave Blogstar vs My Fave Blogstar), but the assumption that everyone is deeply interested in the subject is tiring...

not everything worth doing is profitable. not everything profitable is worth doing.


[ Parent ]
Well... (0.00 / 0)
...we should all be more educated about a lot of things.  Particularly about the various historical and cultural ingredients of the Western liberal tradition, I would think.

I tend to agree with the poster above who suggested that "Religion is killing this country."  And I think it's crucial that we all try to do something to address the problem.  Step one is taking the subject seriously enough to get beyond identity-politics.  We need to be able to have meaningful conversations about religion and its place in society with people of all kinds of views.


[ Parent ]
No we don't (0.00 / 0)
That's not what those who would have us all bow to their make-believe old man in the sky do. They don't go around having "meaningful conversations about religion and its place in society with people of all kinds of views", they get their believers put into places of power (elected or otherwise), then they start dictating codes of conduct.

That's what we need to do.


[ Parent ]
Thank god for separation of church and state (0.00 / 0)
I've always been a bit surprised that the fundamentalists are politically on the Right. I mean, if you look at the teachings of jesus, the guy was an outright socialist...if not a communist. A complete anti-capitalist. So, it seems they would be more at home on the Left. I guess it's because in the 60s the Left embraced so many social issues that were anathema to the fundamentalists; abortion, homosexuality, promiscuity, hedonism, etc.  

You're missing what fundamentalism is. (4.00 / 1)
It's a political movement that began as resistance to integration, with private Bible schools providing a destination for white flighters. When racism became taboo they shifted their focus to being anti-gay and anti-women. I guess they figured those were fights they could still win but they figured wrong.

They are anathema to anyone who takes religion the least bit seriously.

Montani semper liberi


[ Parent ]
Do you think you might be thinking too narrowly? (0.00 / 0)
Fundamentalism isn't just a Christian movement. Although you're right about its use in the South to enforce segregation, religious fundamentalism drives anti-democratic behaviors in lots of other cultures -- cultures dominated by Judaism and Islam for instance. Which would make me think that fundamentalism is inherently anti-democratic regardless of the religion you practice. And since fundamentalist are by definition the most religious, how can you not see that it's really a bigger issue than segregation in the South?

Save Our Schools! March & National Call to Action, July 28-31, 2011 in Washington, DC: http://www.saveourschoolsmarch...

[ Parent ]
Okay -- (4.00 / 1)
Christian fundamentalism. Even that's somewhat outdated as they have started calling themselves "evangelicals" now, or in some quarters, "non-denominational."

But I disagree strongly that fundamentalists are the most religious. Do you really think Jerry Falwell is more religious than Martin Luther King? Or that Osama bin Laden is more religious than Desmond Tutu? There are some who actually try to practice their religion, and some who use it to justify doing what they always wanted to do anyway and claim the blessing of God on their endeavors. The latter will always outnumber the former but they are frauds nonetheless.

Montani semper liberi


[ Parent ]
Fair enough. (0.00 / 0)
But isn't a religion defined by its texts? So that one who adheres most to the texts is therefore more religious? I think what you're arguing for is an ongoing dialogue with the founding texts, continuously adapting them to changing circumstances. But this never changes the texts themselves. And these reinterpretations are never formalized in any way, other than perhaps something like Vatican II where the authorities decided which interpretations of the text need to be updated in order to stay relevant. What Mike says in his diary about the relevancy of the Bible to social and economic justice is just so much fluff in the wind that gets canceled out by an insistence to read the Christian text more literally. Thomas Jefferson understood this problem all too well and edited the Bible to eliminate miracles and references to Jesus as a deity. Why can't modern-day Christians do that?

Save Our Schools! March & National Call to Action, July 28-31, 2011 in Washington, DC: http://www.saveourschoolsmarch...

[ Parent ]
No. (0.00 / 0)
Scripture is only one source of authority in religion. Other sources are tradition (including oral traditions), institutional structures, revelation, and reason. Yes, reason. Different religions and different denominations put the emphasis on different sources or different combinations of sources.

The fallacy that religions are defined by their texts alone is what causes people to think they know everything there is to know about Judaism, because they read the Old Testament. Or to believe that Islam is an inherently violent religion, because of something they read in the Koran.

Montani semper liberi


[ Parent ]
Yes reason. (0.00 / 0)
So the Catholic Church could eventually reason, in Vatican II, that the Earth in fact revolves around the Sun. A few hundred years after it persecuted Galileo. One of the most reasonable religions is in fact Judaism which explicitly endorses a dialogue with its texts. (BTW the Old Testament is not a Jewish text. It's not the same thing as the Torah and the Haftorah.) And yet you still end up with Zionism. Until religious orthodoxy by definition involves continuous revisions of its canons, I don't see how you can release it of it's bonds to fundamentalism. All the other stuff is fleeting.

Save Our Schools! March & National Call to Action, July 28-31, 2011 in Washington, DC: http://www.saveourschoolsmarch...

[ Parent ]
But fundamentalism (4.00 / 1)
is not the same thing as literalism, nor is orthodoxy. These are all different things. Maybe the word you're looking for is "authoritarianism?"

Even so I would argue that just because authoritarians like to cloak their agenda in religious language, this does not make them religious, and it certainly does not make them more religious than normal people.

Montani semper liberi


[ Parent ]
Maybe so... (0.00 / 0)
I'll have to think about that.

Save Our Schools! March & National Call to Action, July 28-31, 2011 in Washington, DC: http://www.saveourschoolsmarch...

[ Parent ]
Origins of fundamentalism (0.00 / 0)
> [fundamentalism is] a political movement that began as resistance to integration

Um, well... no.  American Christian fundamentalism's origins can be traced at least as far back as the late 1800's, as a reaction to the philosophical assumptions of the Enlightenment reaching Biblical scholarship.  The term came into explicit use, as I recall, during the 1920's, and the Scopes trial (1925) was essentially the fundamentalist-vs-modernist fight projected onto a particular court case.  See Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture, for a mind-numbingly detailed history.

However, the modern integration of Christian fundamentalism into the broader movement of U.S. right-wing politics is in fact, as you suggest, linked to white resistance to school integration in the 1960's and 1970's.  At least that's what William Martin suggests in With God On Our Side: The Rise of the Religious Right in America.  But fundamentalism as a stream of Christianity began much earlier.

- Bruce


[ Parent ]
Fundamentalism as a religious (0.00 / 0)
movement is, in my opinion, a mere curiousity, of interest only to scholars. The political movement that goes by the same name is the one to watch. Those guys will kill us all if they get half a chance.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Distributive justice (4.00 / 1)
What would Beck make of the Catholic ethical teaching on justice, which includes distributive justice, the obligation to make sure that the benefits and wealth of a society are shared by all, distributed fairly throughout society? Beck should get on that term and promote awareness of it.

Of course, "fairly" can be flexible and certainly allows for the accumulation of individual wealth but the obligation for ALL to benefit from the wealth produced by a society is definitely there.


Personal Charity vs government (0.00 / 0)
You are being unfair to most fundamentalists and many conservatives. They believe in an obligation to extend charitable help to those in need. They simply believe that this help must be the work of individuals and church congregations. So they are taking those Biblical passages seriously. They re not ignoring them. They believe that those passages do not apply to government.

"Social Justice" thinking really stems from the ethical principle of distributive justice. Some Italian fascists took distributive justice seriously, without racial considerations. That is why so many Jews and Catholics could comfortably be Italian fascists. Then Hitler took distributive justice and limited its benefits only to the chosen people, Germans and so-called aryans. So if Beck were a better scholar he might find some basis to be cautious (not opposed) about the term "social justice." Even this essentially good concept can be distorted.

In the words of Augustine of Hippo, "Charity is justice denied." Charity is no substitute for a more just society governed with a bias towards equality.


The problem lies (0.00 / 0)
in their unconscious will to power. We tried it their way, with charity as the exclusive monopoly of individuals and churches -- the works of Charles Dickens will show you exactly how well that worked out. It was brutal, sick and cruel.

Don't get me wrong, I am a religious person and I love the church. But I know her well, and I know she has no business being in a position of power over vulnerable people in any way, shape or form.

Montani semper liberi


[ Parent ]
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox