i know the white sox winning the world series is a big deal, but ...
bush has said he won't appoint judges who don't think our rights come to us from god (though as ira glass points out, article vi of the constitution forbids that any "religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States").
virginia legislator and confessed christian bill carrico claims that "christians by their very nature are non-confrontational."
what is the deal with christians in america?
loyola invited sojourner's editor-in-chief jim wallis to speak this past tuesday night during their week long celebration "evoke" - a week dedicated to helping students find their purpose and calling (i'll interject here a grand kudos to what i've experienced of loyola and its faculty and staff for truly taking this to heart). always up for a little public speaking action, my roommate erin and i headed north for the assembly.
i heard jim speak earlier this year at the university of chicago right after his book, "god's politics: why the right gets it wrong and the left doesn't get it," hit shelves. though many months have passed, his message on tuesday was a similar one.
the evening began on an enthusiastic note; and it was obvious jim was preaching to the choir when, not even 3 minutes into his talk, the audience was wildly applauding his generic assertion that a "new movement is rising up in this country."
fine, fine. john kerry's camp said the same thing during the democratic convention. malcom x said it. martin luther king, jr. said it. i'm certain jerry falwell said it. for crying out loud, i've said it to my own volunteers. there's always a movement brewing. i'm willing to bet that at any given time, at least one person somewhere feels desire great enough to lead people in something. jim said nothing new with that statement.
still, i decided to give him the benefit of the doubt and suppose that he was simply testing the waters, determining the majority attitude of his audience. but i still stirred in my seat. i wanted him to get to the point. i'd blow my whistle and stomp my feet when we discussed strategy.
but for the next ten minutes, the audience cheered him on as he voiced their true identities.
defensively.
why is it that christians feel the need to prove who they AREN'T to prove who they ARE?
we're not the religious right. don't call US that. but we're not crazy liberals either. of course, we're not NOT liberal. and make sure you don't call us "conservative" - unless you mean it in a specific context. and really, we're not "religious," persay. and we're no longer "spiritual, but not religious." got it?
maybe what we are is plain old afraid. when will we stop trying to defend ourselves?
is it because we listen to christians like carrico who become the voice of america's judeo-christian god, representing and speaking for us because, as he admitted, "christians by their very nature are non-confrontational?"
is it because we don't want to be as narrow-minded as those religious right christians? is it because we don't want to abandon god like those crazy leftists?
what the crap. it annoys me. it annoys me on a very personal level, too, because there's little else i hate more than being pushed into a box. of course i don't like being thrown into the same category as christians who commit hate crimes against homosexuals or set fire to abortion clinics or rage against cartoon characters or sport "in case of rapture ..." stickers on their vehicles. it's much more amusing and - by my actions - seemingly much more important to me to defend myself than to become myself. and i think satan's happy with that. i think he likes to distract christians with hurled insults, tauntings, and profiles on wildly unloving christian extremists in the news, to name a few.
it frustrates me that i am annoyed by the very annoying actions i am also guilty of committing.
i wonder if mother teresa got up in the morning and thought, "damn those priests for their evil crimes against children. i will publicly wail against their atrocities BECAUSE my motive is to clear myself of any association with their kind. i may be catholic, but i am not like them."
do you think she spent her life defending her name?
jim eventually got to the muscle of his talk during the Q&A time (props to the young man who asked him to "be controversial"), addressing in specifics what he regards as the needed "moral center" of politics and challenging faith-based organizations to move from ministry to model to movement.
and after all that discussion in the beginning about who we're not, he carefully addressed his energetic, bandwagon-jumping, no-longer spiritual-but-not-religious, not-too-far-right-not-too-far-left, how-would-jesus-vote-if-jesus-would-even-vote-at-all crowd with a rather exceptional quote.
we can continue to discuss and we should, he said. but let's not forget that we need to also heed the call to action. after all, "you're more likely to live your way into a new way of thinking than you are to think your way in to a new way of living."
i think to take that to heart would allow us a freedom from defending our names. maybe then we could plainly say who we are because we're confident our actions will speak for themselves.
and jim, if you're reading this, kudos to you for having the balls to put yourself in a place where you're regularly attacked - especially by your own brothers and sisters, your fellow believers - and still actively forging ahead. and one more thing, i'm totally game for any internships you may have available ... i'm just saying ...