Game On
In recent days there have been mutterings that it is time for liberals to reclaim the Constitution[sup]†[/sup]. Where the idea goes that Conservatives have controlled the Constitutional discussion for too long, and liberals have opportunities to challenge the presuppositions they consider faulty, this isn't the only sector of the political discourse defined almost exclusively by conservatives.
Caitlan MacNeal of TPM reported earlier this month on another front opening in the struggle for equal rights:
For a Christian response, "Game on!" is actually a pretty good one on this occasion. Rev. Emmy Lou Belcher, retired Unitarian Universalist minister, explained her participation as an issue of exclusion: "The health care law is meant to cover a diverse society, so people aren't excluded. What this has done is exclude."
And looking around one finds various comments from web readers along the lines of Rev. Winters being a Christian who actually understands the teachings of Christ, and whether that particular idea holds true in the context of the rest of his life is certainly a valid question. But in that proposition we see the split. For generations the American conscience has been swayed by innovations on a God most famously described by Jonathan Edwards in a 1741 sermon. The most prominent assertions of Christian faith in the political discourse during my lifetime has been the censorious, judgmental political argumentation that dominates various critiques of Christendom. A psychoanalysis of history would resolve on a usurpation hypothesis, that these judgmental Christians display functionally a faith that would presume God's authority for themselves, or, in Biblical terms, the unforgivable sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (Mt. 12.31).
The hard part for the psychoanalysis is justifying that resolution; but the behavior is shot through with demonstrations of piety to be witnessed by others, judgment of perceived sin, seizures of what is Caesar's, and plank-ridden eyes. This political, evangelical conservatism is not so much a house divided as one that seeks to divide.
The Corpus Christi has long been witnessed to project solidarity despite the internal divisions; it is, in truth, a house divided. For Christian faith itself, the stakes are tremendous, even cosmic.
I am part of a "John 3.16" generation, preached and pitched a loving, forgiving God that comprehends the realities of human limitation. Even this alleged unforgivable sin becomes forgivable, as the neurotic complex driving such outcomes are His Will.
However, it is such a stark contrast to the Christendom that aims to govern aspects of our daily lives, from pop music on up to our basic right to self-governance. It is an outlook that asserts supremacy as the basis of equality.
It is a theological fight. It is also an ethical fight. And a political fight. Potentially a proverbial battle for the soul of Christian faith. And it is worth keeping an eye on. For the faithful, the stakes are eternal. For the rest of us, they're merely really, really important.
____________________
Notes:
[sup]†[/sup] e.g., Balkin, Jack. "How liberals can reclaim the Constitution". PostEverything. July 11, 2014. (Washington Post)
Works Cited:
MacNeal, Caitlin. "Illinois Clergy Protest SCOTUS Ruling By Giving Out Condoms At Hobby Lobby". Talking Points Memo Livewire. July 3, 2014. TalkingPointsMemo.com. July 12, 2014. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/clergy-protest-hobby-lobby-condoms
Edwards, Jonathan. "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God". July 8, 1741. CCEL.org. July 12, 2014. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/edwards/sermons.sinners.html
Weigle, Luther, et al. The Bible: Revised Standard Version. New York: Thomas Nelson, 1971. University of Michigan. July 12, 2014. http://quod.lib.umich.edu/r/rsv/
In recent days there have been mutterings that it is time for liberals to reclaim the Constitution[sup]†[/sup]. Where the idea goes that Conservatives have controlled the Constitutional discussion for too long, and liberals have opportunities to challenge the presuppositions they consider faulty, this isn't the only sector of the political discourse defined almost exclusively by conservatives.
Caitlan MacNeal of TPM reported earlier this month on another front opening in the struggle for equal rights:
A reverend in Illinois organized a demonstration to hand out condoms outside of a local Hobby Lobby store in order to protest the Supreme Court's ruling on contraception, the Daily Herald reported.
Rev. Mark Winters of the First Congregational United Church of Christ in Naperville, Ill., said it started out as a joke in a Facebook, but after he got a great response, he decided to organize a protest.
The group of demonstrators stood outside the store to hand out condoms donated by Planned Parenthood....
.... "You can make the religious freedom argument, you can make the argument about contraception, but ultimately, for me, this is about power," he said. "Jesus had a lot of issue with powerful people using power over the powerless."
Rev. Mark Winters of the First Congregational United Church of Christ in Naperville, Ill., said it started out as a joke in a Facebook, but after he got a great response, he decided to organize a protest.
The group of demonstrators stood outside the store to hand out condoms donated by Planned Parenthood....
.... "You can make the religious freedom argument, you can make the argument about contraception, but ultimately, for me, this is about power," he said. "Jesus had a lot of issue with powerful people using power over the powerless."
For a Christian response, "Game on!" is actually a pretty good one on this occasion. Rev. Emmy Lou Belcher, retired Unitarian Universalist minister, explained her participation as an issue of exclusion: "The health care law is meant to cover a diverse society, so people aren't excluded. What this has done is exclude."
And looking around one finds various comments from web readers along the lines of Rev. Winters being a Christian who actually understands the teachings of Christ, and whether that particular idea holds true in the context of the rest of his life is certainly a valid question. But in that proposition we see the split. For generations the American conscience has been swayed by innovations on a God most famously described by Jonathan Edwards in a 1741 sermon. The most prominent assertions of Christian faith in the political discourse during my lifetime has been the censorious, judgmental political argumentation that dominates various critiques of Christendom. A psychoanalysis of history would resolve on a usurpation hypothesis, that these judgmental Christians display functionally a faith that would presume God's authority for themselves, or, in Biblical terms, the unforgivable sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (Mt. 12.31).
The hard part for the psychoanalysis is justifying that resolution; but the behavior is shot through with demonstrations of piety to be witnessed by others, judgment of perceived sin, seizures of what is Caesar's, and plank-ridden eyes. This political, evangelical conservatism is not so much a house divided as one that seeks to divide.
The Corpus Christi has long been witnessed to project solidarity despite the internal divisions; it is, in truth, a house divided. For Christian faith itself, the stakes are tremendous, even cosmic.
I am part of a "John 3.16" generation, preached and pitched a loving, forgiving God that comprehends the realities of human limitation. Even this alleged unforgivable sin becomes forgivable, as the neurotic complex driving such outcomes are His Will.
However, it is such a stark contrast to the Christendom that aims to govern aspects of our daily lives, from pop music on up to our basic right to self-governance. It is an outlook that asserts supremacy as the basis of equality.
It is a theological fight. It is also an ethical fight. And a political fight. Potentially a proverbial battle for the soul of Christian faith. And it is worth keeping an eye on. For the faithful, the stakes are eternal. For the rest of us, they're merely really, really important.
____________________
Notes:
[sup]†[/sup] e.g., Balkin, Jack. "How liberals can reclaim the Constitution". PostEverything. July 11, 2014. (Washington Post)
Works Cited:
MacNeal, Caitlin. "Illinois Clergy Protest SCOTUS Ruling By Giving Out Condoms At Hobby Lobby". Talking Points Memo Livewire. July 3, 2014. TalkingPointsMemo.com. July 12, 2014. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/clergy-protest-hobby-lobby-condoms
Edwards, Jonathan. "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God". July 8, 1741. CCEL.org. July 12, 2014. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/edwards/sermons.sinners.html
Weigle, Luther, et al. The Bible: Revised Standard Version. New York: Thomas Nelson, 1971. University of Michigan. July 12, 2014. http://quod.lib.umich.edu/r/rsv/