Right after the election, a few irate liberals expressed shock at the insinuation that they have no values. They do have values. But it was funny to read about Nancy Pelosi, a pro-infanticide Catholic, asserting that Democrats need to be more open about their faith.
I’ve been criticized for implying that liberals aren’t Christians. Where does my perception come from? Did I pull it out of thin air? Perhaps I think that way because the loudest liberals, the ones in the spotlight, don’t demonstrate how God is working in their lives. If they claim to believe in the God of the Bible yet think “doctors” should be shielded from criminal liability when they plunge a pair of scissors into an unborn child’s head, they follow a god, alright.
Maybe this is something such “Christians” can work on and square with their conscience. Just a suggestion.
To liberals with genuine faith, more power to you. It might do you (and us) some good to share your faith with others, as the Bible commands you to do. But to the fakers, Kathleen Parker has some advice for you:
The Democrats apparently have decided they’ll have what Bush has been having. I half expect to see aspiring Democratic presidential candidates showing up at Promise Keepers conventions, high-fiving for Jesus, and photo-oping with little Baptist blue-hairs on their way to Wednesday-night prayer meeting.Of all the things one can pretend in order to win a voter’s confidence, religious devotion seems the least likely. Moreover, until the Democratic Party’s policy positions reflect beliefs consistent with the values held by American’s religious moderates and traditionalists, their newly fashioned messages are going to sound like what they are. Faked.
You can’t just suddenly start carrying around a Bible and expect to convince people you’re a believer. It is also dangerous to invoke the Bible if you’re not that familiar with it, as Howard Dean proved when he expressed his admiration for the book of Job, which he erroneously placed in the New Testament.
David Limbaugh adds:
Conservatives don’t claim that same-sex marriage and abortion are the only moral issues. And I wish liberals would quit superciliously asserting that only they care about the environment, war and peace, poverty, and health care.Conservatives just have a different approach to these issues. They abhor war, but believe it is sometimes necessary and morally justified. They believe their approach to poverty is actually more compassionate because it is more effective…
This blog attracts a fair number of unbelievers, and I appreciate your readership. For those who are critical of my faith in particular and Christianity in general, your unfamiliarity with the Bible is my #1 pet peeve. It’s a waste of my time and yours if you’re not willing to try to understand the faith of someone whose blog you frequent.
If you at least made the effort, I’d be grateful.
————————————————-
Links: Guy Cannon on the evangelical “agenda” and Phil Dillon on serving, not ruling.
Joe Carter on values voters and moral relativism.
Update: Read what a prominent liberal has to say about values. He also said this about Bush’s faith. In fact, read his archives.
La Shawn
I did a piece on my blog titled “In Order to Be Sincere, You Must First Really Be Sincere” that also dealt with that topic. It will take more than religious language to convince conservatives. That said, I believe conservatives now need to capture the high ground in the area of culture, the arts, social justice.
Comment by Phil Dillon — 11.15.04 @ 7:16 am
Once I sent a copy of the Bible to a friend who is a militant atheist. I got tired of him arguing against something he had no clue about. I also recommended him reading 1st & 2nd Kings, as there’s some good, gory history in there (well, =I= thought them the most lively of the Old Testament books.) Another guy - my guitar teacher, who comes from an atheistic family, is shocked when I tell him some of the stories from the Bible — whenever he says “Do you believe in the Virgin Birth?” or “How can you believe in transubstantiation?” I have to remind him that my religion is based around God becoming Man, being executed, and coming back to life. If you can get your mind around that, these other things are small potatoes. Heck, if you can accept God, the unlimited, taking on human limitations willingly, then really, all else pales in comparison.
For those who wish to be more specific, and argue with Catholicism, we’ve got our Catechism online (go to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ website, it’s one of the main links on the sidebar.)
I find it rich whenever an outsider wants to tell me what I believe in. Hmmm…. yeah, whatever. I’m =so= convinced.
Comment by meep — 11.15.04 @ 9:21 am
A few thoughts:
The abortion issue aside–since I find it almost impossible to call yourself a human, much less a Christian, and support abortion–we should be careful to criticize liberals on some issues that are biblical, issues we conservatives fail to pursue with any zeal.
For instance, most conservative Christians do a lousy job of supporting sensible environmental policies. Given that God’s first few commands dealt with stewardship of the creation He made, it has long bothered me to see the van festooned with Jesus and pro-life bumper stickers dumping their fast food trash out a window while they travel down the highway to their next Christian event. Will God not judge us for our indescriminate pollution and environmental malfeasance?
Conservative Christians do a lousy job of dealing with justice issues. Sure, it may tick us off that Bush’s justices have been fillibustered to death by the Democrats (and we may be very aware of the holes this leaves in getting people justice quickly), but we don’t really care all that much about the individuals who are treated unjustly in this country and others. A liberal organization like Amnesty International does a better job at highlighting justice issues around the globe (though they often do a poor job noting those close to conservatives hearts) than most conservatives do.
Lastly, liberals (though not the blue-blood and Hollywood types, just the “average Joe” liberal) IS more in tune with the issue of poverty in this country. I’ve worked in a few ministries to the poor and religious liberals (often pro-abortion) who are self-professed Christians outnumber the more conservative kind. Step outside of religious affiliation altogether, and the rest of the volunteers are usually liberals. That doesn’t make us conservative Christians look so good.
Again, our message works best when we are actually out there doing what Jesus asks of us. We can’t cherrypick the parts of the Bible that appeal to us or ask for the least amount of effort on our parts. Liberal Christians beat us conservatives in fulfilling the social Gospel while we tend to beat them in other areas. The problem is that God is not into one side beating the other.
Sin is sin. Mistreating the creation is sin just like abortion is. Judgment will come to rapers of the environment just like it will come to the pro-abort crowd. (And no, I’m not trying to establish equivalency here, just pointing out truth.) In short, we conservative Christians can’t hide behind the parts of the Bible we like while ignoring the rest. We need to be doing it all. Then maybe the world will take our message seriously.
Comment by DLE — 11.15.04 @ 10:21 am
Concerning Howard Dean’s biblical illiteracy, again, we must be careful. I was once a part of a conservative evangelical church that has a great reputation worldwide and over 7000 attendees, but I would suspect that probably a third of the people in that church would (sadly) make the same mistake Dean did in placing Job in the New Testament. And yet no one would be calling the faith of those people into question.
We conservative Christians need to be reminded that whenever the Bible is mishandled it is ultimately our fault for not getting out there and doing a better job making disciples. That is our primary mission. If Howard Dean mishandles the Bible, it is solely because we conservative Christians have had little or no impact on his life or whatever religious faith he may have. And that’s a sad statement.
Comment by DLE — 11.15.04 @ 10:34 am
Meep,
Another good book I’ve found for helping the non-religious get a handle on things is Asimov’s Guide to the Bible. It is chock full of references and commentary, and has a nice index for major events and persons.
I keep it on the shelf near my desk for when I really need to explain something to a non-christian. Or for the christian who has never really read the bible.
Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 11.15.04 @ 10:35 am
About your Howard Dean statement, DLE, you might be partly correct about Christians in Dean’s life, but also remember what the Bible says about that. Dean may very well have heard Scripture taught or quoted properly and still be blind and deaf to God’s word.
About this social gospel, social justice, etc., what makes you or unbelievers on the blog think Christians aren’t fulfilling God’s calls to feed the hungry and not “in tune” with poverty? Christians do plenty to help the poor, but the way we do it isn’ “sexy” and it doesn’t make news and we don’t choose to shove it people’s faces or take them on misguided guilt trips. I choose to place emphasis on one thing on my site; you and other Christians may choose to emphasize something else on your site’s. When it comes to cherry-picking, I’m afraid we all do that to a certain degree. I really wish Christians would remember that before critiquing other Christians and the way they do things.
Comment by La Shawn — 11.15.04 @ 10:39 am
DLE,
I’ve found the liberal/conservative, christian/non mix in volunteer work really varies from place to place. In central PA, poverty outreach programs are very christian heavy. The more secular liberals wouldn’t come out and play with the christians, since hearing ‘God bless you’ every time soup was ladled or clothing distributed burned their ears or somesuch… but they ran their own show.
In south east PA, the same work is very liberal, but at the same time, so is the population (Democrats 4-1).
I’ve gone to the shelters and outreach sites in this area (Philly), and I can tell you, conservatives are often NOT welcome. As a result, I donate my time and money with the Knights of Columbus instead.
Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 11.15.04 @ 11:42 am
LaShawn,
I’ve been a Christian for coming up on three decades. My degree is in Christian Education from a conservative evangelical college. In that role, I’ve spent a considerable amount of time looking at Christian discipleship and formation within churches and I know what I have seen: The average evangelical Christian in the suburbs is not doing anything about the poor, the environment, or justice issues.
Case in point–At the church I attended they had two lines for people to get involved. One was for signing a petition to ban homosexual marriage. The other line was to sign up to put together a bag of groceries that would be given to a poor family. Hundreds of signatures filled up the marriage petition. Less than a dozen were on the volunteer list to make up a single bag of groceries for the poor. Just by that, which issue seems to be more on the minds of people in that church?
This is not to say that there are NO conservative evangelical Christians doing anything about the poor, the environment, or justice issues. They are just outnumbered by their liberal counterparts and I don’t understand why that should be the case.
We all have blind spots. All I am saying is that we need to be careful when we assess someone’s Christianity based on their political stances, even if those stances have moral implications. I look at some people who claim to be Christians and I, too, can question if they really are simply because they support issues that don’t jive with my interpretation of Scripture. But I can’t point my finger at them and tell them they aren’t Christians if I am not engaged in doing the very ministries they are actively pursuing.
We can all name Christian leaders on the anti-abortion side, but how many can we name who are pursuing a greater responsibility for stewardship of creation? I’ve also taught outdoor education, so I know a few, but virtually no one else knows who they are. Why not?
See what I mean? We have to be very careful or else the log in our eye will speak out against us.
Comment by DLE — 11.15.04 @ 11:47 am
Doctors should face criminal liability? Hmmmm, a fair argument. But what about troops that kill innocents/people who have surrendered in Iraqi? Are they ‘collateral?’
Comment by Mariachi — 11.15.04 @ 12:05 pm
QUOTE: Dean may very well have heard Scripture taught or quoted properly and still be blind and deaf to God’s word.
That may be true, but since neither of us knows the man personally, we are on thin ice if we try to assess the depth of whatever faith he has (or doesn’t have) simply because under the pressure of the national spotlight he put Job in the New Testament. As a doctor, he puts my feeble efforts to shame in tending for the sick, so I know that I am at least willing to give him some grace there.
And still, if Dean doesn’t have real Christians in his life, we “real Christians” have failed him.
It is also disturbing to me that so many East Coast liberals claim not to know any evangelical Christians. Now we can say all we can about how tribal East Coast liberals are, but if we Christians are not out there making friends of East Coast liberals, then again, we are failing our mission.
Too many Christians “ghetto-ize” themselves into a country club–or in extreme cases, bunker–mentality. We are afraid to mix with folks who are different from us, especially if we find their views abhorrent. But that is still our mission. So when I hear a liberal media type claiming that he/she doesn’t know any conservative Christians, that’s as big an indictment against us as it is against them. It’s a two-way street. We have to always keep that in mind.
Comment by DLE — 11.15.04 @ 12:23 pm
DLE - While you’re indicting Christians, remember how deceptive people can be. They may very well know who the Christians are but claim not to. And God told us how we can know Christians by their fruits. You make some valid points, but I don’t agree with all of them. I think what is causing some confusion is the use of political labels. I was vilified not to long ago for posting Doug Giles’s “Christian or liberal” column. Only God can judge a man’s heart, but if someone is voting for people who support (and advocate for) child murderers, they need a lot more chastising than I do. I hope you’re just as diligent in this effort as you are with me.
Comment by La Shawn — 11.15.04 @ 12:30 pm
Mariachi: But what about troops that kill innocents/people who have surrendered in Iraqi? Are they ‘collateral?’
3 words.
War Crimes Tribunals.
The number of collateral kills (by the coalition) is actually very low. It would be lower still if the Baathist hold outs and foriegn guerillas stopped using them as human shields and decoys. And stopped pretending to surrender, then opening fire on Iraqi and US troops…
Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 11.15.04 @ 1:46 pm
I started to comment on the article by the prominent liberal vis a vis the Democrat support for African-American rights, but wound up wanting to respond to DLE and Mariachi. You know, and I hope those who frequent your blog know, that the 15th amendment (equal voting rights) was opposed by 97% of the Democrats and supported by 98% of the Republicans. You know that conservative policies support everyone without making them slaves of the state, unlike liberal policies. Why, then, does the mistaken notion that the Democrats are for blacks, Asians and Hispanics persist?
DLE has many excellent points, but confuses charitable groups for individual piety. James did not suggest that if you see a brother naked you go form an outreach. He simply said to take care of it. And it is rather easy to criticize anything or anyone, so I’ll try to be better at it.
Mariachi seems to have news that we don’t have. The whole Abu Ghraib incident, while wrong, does not compare to the wholesale slaughter of his own people by Saddam Hussein and the bodies left behind by the terrorists. I’m so sorry that these people were humiliated. We did not hack their limbs or heads off. And I know of no incident where US soldiers fired on people who were unarmed, except as was noted, when the terrorists were using them as shields.
Comment by Rick — 11.15.04 @ 3:40 pm
I’ve lost patience with these kind of comments, and I will delete them. - Admin
Comment by political news — 11.15.04 @ 6:00 pm
Catholicism is not a democracy. Either you are a Catholic, or you are not. When you put your pro-abortion ideology before your religion, you are no longer a Catholic. This is the outcome of an analysis of a Vatican consultant based upon a suit before the ecclesiastical court against John Kerry.
Comment by Joel (No Pundit Intended) — 11.15.04 @ 7:48 pm
All I am saying is that we need to be careful when we assess someone’s Christianity based on their political stances, even if those stances have moral implications.
I was taken for the woodshed for commenting here that I doubted someone’s profession of being a Christian.
In that context, I find the current comments here interesting.
Comment by DarkStar — 11.15.04 @ 8:16 pm
One cannot separate their beliefs from politics. That is what Kerry tried to do and it doesn’t work. If I believe killing the unborn is wrong, I cannot say it’s wrong for me but ok for you. Postmodernism is one of the things tearing this country apart. There are those of us who believe that there are certain absolute truths and there are those of us who believe truth is always situational. That is a major dividing point.
Catholics like Kerry don’t believe in their church telling them what to do but despite what he says they have no problem telling the church what to do.
If I had more time I could discuss humility and obedience as virtues but I’ll save that for my own blog.
I am traveling the next few days and would appreciate your prayers for safety and wisdom in the business I conduct.
God bless.
Comment by BobG — 11.15.04 @ 8:57 pm
BobG wrote: One cannot separate their beliefs from politics.
Christianity is not a political system, therefore there must exist points where Christianity and politics do not (or cannot) overlap.
For instance, the politically defined right of privacy simply does not exist in the Bible. Nowhere in true Christian community can there be an established right of privacy. You become a Christian, you give up your right to yourself. You are God’s. God may choose to deposit needy people at your doorstep at crazy times of the day. You don’t get a choice to say no to them because you gave up your right of privacy when you said yes to Christ.
That’s just one way in which politics and Christian belief do not intersect; dozens more exist.
Comment by DLE — 11.16.04 @ 12:56 am
I never said Christianity was a political system but where the two do intersect for a Christian the choice is evident. Jesus pretty much covered it all with, “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”
And by the way, you always get a choice, it’s called free will.
Comment by BobG — 11.16.04 @ 6:09 am
DLE,
I think politics and faith always overlap. When you reach places in politics where the rules are unclear, what does one use to make a decision?
Right to privacy? There is no such right in society, either. The closest thing in reality is 4th ammendment, forbidding the govt from unreasonable search and siezure (and things like billeting troups in your house without cause).
If God in omnipotent and omnipresent, how does accepting Jesus take away your right to privacy? If anything, you’re just being honest with yourself in recognizing that in realtion to God, you never had one!
As for many, many other examples… I doubt it. Anyone who can completely sepperate their faith from their politics has sold out one or both, IMO.
I’ve said it before, but I’ll say it again: Politics and faith will always come into conflict, but it is up to us to decide which comes first, and which guides the other.
Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 11.16.04 @ 9:59 am
Great to see you, a person who never waited till marriage to have sex and who spent the better part of their early adulthood as an alcoholic being moral judge.
Let he is without sin cast the first stone…not the words of a liberal, but of the one you profess to follow. Good luck and may he bless you.
Comment by richard — 11.16.04 @ 5:20 pm
Oh, but if I had those years to live over again, Richard! Do as I do, not as I have done. My descent into alcoholism and licentiousness serves as an example of what happens when we live by no higher authority than ourselves.
There was a time I couldn’t even look at myself in the mirror, I was so ashamed. But now my shameful past is behind me, and the blood of Christ has washed away my iniquities! (Can you say the same?) For these and other reasons, the link to my testimony article is there for all to see and for people like yourself to comment on.
What you meant for sarcasm, God meant for good. I suspect you don’t really wish me God’s blessing, but in spite of what you or anyone else has to say, God has already blessed me beyond measure. My cup runs over!
May He be as gracious to you.
Comment by La Shawn — 11.16.04 @ 5:30 pm
I used to eat mudpies, when I was 3… I know better now. Does that disqualify me from knowing , and lecturing on, how to cook a nutritious meal? No, of course not.
Sometimes it takes a former sinner to see sins for what they really are. It is one of the reasons that my favorite Catholic saint is Augustine.
Now, why is it some folks demand perfection from people before they allow them to point out or try to correct imperfection? LOL
Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 11.16.04 @ 5:57 pm
There are so many excellent comments in this Blog. La Shawn you truly are a blessing to all those who happen upon your page. After reading all the comments to this particular issue, it seems Liberals try to make perfection in their own image, and conservatives look to God and realize their own imperfections in doing so. Liberals would do well to review the road they have traveled before pointing their fingers at others.
Comment by CONSERVATIVE IN PA — 11.16.04 @ 6:48 pm
Christian Carnival XLIV :
The Seeds of a Worthy Dream The post is about what I believe is the foundation to Christian involvement in the culture. I have a dream that Christians would bring on a new birth of creativity in our culture that…
Trackback by ChristWeb — 11.17.04 @ 12:00 am
Secular humaisn is a threat to us all its a new age cult of dangerous fanatics wanting to put a end to the traditional american family and the traditional way of life its time to get the secular humanists out of our lives and away from our kids
Comment by firebird — 11.17.04 @ 10:15 am
The sort of language being used in this piece reminds me why folks who are left of center find themselves homeless in the religious world. If they try to stay in the church their faith is constantly questioned since they don’t accept the set of right wing axioms which have come to define religious expression in this country. Rather you get stuck with the label “faker”.
My question is this: in all this talk about understanding evangelicals, why is there no talk or desire to use language which is not scornful to those of us Christians, many in the mainline Protestant tradition, who find themselves in the liberal end of the spectrum. The idea of mutual understanding is great. It’s something not happening though in the discourse after the election.
Comment by Dwight — 11.17.04 @ 7:50 pm
Dwight, there is room for a vigorous debate in areas of our Christian walk. However, the scorn is not necessarily directed at the person, rather at the flawed foundation on which “liberals” base their worldview.
Speaking of scorn, the motivation for the Jewish leadership to seek Jesus’ death was the scorn that he heaped on their hypocrisy. Being shamed in public by a mere carpenter was no doubt humiliating and to add salt to their wounds, the lay people persisted in calling Jesus Rabbi.
Never once were they able to beat Jesus in a Scriptual debate!!! Time and time again, Jesus would refer to the written Holy Words and show their interpretation to be shallow or at best self-serving.
So what they couldn’t do to Jesus within the OT system, they tried extrajudiciously. Sort of sounds like today’s liberals. Everytime they can’t persuade 60 million idiots of their blinding brilliance, they run to a sympathetic judge to enforce their warped worldview.
So if one’s feelings are hurt, consider the source of the “pain”. For it is written: I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ; for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, The just shall live by faith. Romans 1:16 & 17.
The just shall live by faith, an unshakeable faith when built upon the Rock and not on the prevailing sands of moral relativity. But how does one ensure that they are on solid ground? Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that
needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. 2 Timothy 2:15. In doing so, it behooves us all to Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths. Proverbs 3:5-6.
That said, during the course of debate, there is no cause for hurt feelings over disagreements. Just as a sword is sharpened by abrasion, a healthy debate should sharpen your sword and should be welcomed. Feelings on the other hand tend to dull the edge.
Comment by Andy — 11.17.04 @ 9:48 pm