Thursday, October 27, 2005

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 ...

12 Comments:

At 12:00 PM, Blogger bwhawk said...

Preach it, sister. Some very good thoughts that need little more said about them. So, kudos to you...

 
At 12:29 PM, Blogger Jon said...

I agree with much if not all of what you say; Christians in America do and say some dumb things, movement for movement sake is no big deal and we do spend too much time defining who we are not verses who we are. And from what you say, you are frustrated that you fall into the same trap as others in defining who you are not? If so, who are we? How do we define ourselves in proactive, society changing ways? Or maybe what is implied in what you say is that we need to not worry about defining ourselves at all and spend more time acting as we should?

I love the problem that you bring up but I would also love to hear more about how you think Christians in general or maybe you yourself should live. I am coming from the belief that 'the church is the hope of the world' and despite our crap, God will by his grace use his church to bring life. So how should this look, I only have a very rough idea on that one.

Thanks for bringing up such foundational questions about the Christian faith.

 
At 7:50 PM, Blogger Laura said...

Mary - this is one of my favorite posts of yours, because I love to hate this kind of stuff, and that's being a bit cynical, because it also hurts me deep in my soul to see how incredibly misunderstood/mistaken/misguided Christians and non-Christians are about "the other." I don't really have anything to add that wouldn't qualify as some sort of ranting, which is, like you said, just what we should be avoiding, because, we should just be living our faith. But it's so difficult, who even knows how to do and still be an informed, intelligent person of society?

 
At 8:45 AM, Blogger allan said...

(Disgusted, Wallace starts to walk out.)

Craig: Gentlemen! Please, Gentlemen! Wait! Sir William, where are you
going?

William: We have beaten the English, but they'll come back because
you won't stand together.

Craig: Well what will you do?

William: I will invade England and defeat the English on their own
ground.

Craig: Invade? That's impossible.

William: Why? Why is that impossible? You're so concerned with
squabbling for the scraps from Longshank's table that you've missed
your God-given right to something better. There is a difference
between us. You think the people of this country exist to provide you
with position. I think your position exists to provide those people
with freedom. And I go to make sure that they have it.


Indeed. We ask for the courage to move beyond the defensive and defining empty rhetoric to a visible lifestyle of action, compassion and love for a hurting and broken society. We could have something better if we would stop squabbling for positions and definitions. How? Our action will define who we are, by existing for others and providing them with freedom. It is our actions that will make sure they have it. It is possible. Indeed it is.

Good post mare.

 
At 9:12 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Okay, I'll bite. I hear what you're saying about identifying ourselves as what we are not. A process-of-elimination identity, and rather on the negative side instead of the positive. As in, I'll point out all the things I don't like, and don't want to be identified with, and disown them.

I'm sitting here thinking...it's hard for me to imagine Jesus walking around telling the crowds, "Well, I'm definitely NOT one of those legalistic Pharisees who forsakes the living God in favor of following an endless list of rules, and hey, people? I'm also NOT a pagan who worships some other foreign god or idol. AND, I'm also not just some guy who CLAIMS to be speaking the truth of God but is really a false prophet...." That does not jive with the character of the God I follow.

Besides, Jesus DID identify himself with the legalistic, perverse, deceitful and greedy: he ate and hung out with sinners: tax collectors, prostitutes, teachers of the law.... And in that time, sharing a meal with a person communicated acceptance, and full identification with that individual - something more profound than our casual lunch dates tend to do here and now.

Side note: If my "let's grab a bite to eat" meal dates communicated to the watching world that I fully accepted and supported and identified with my eating companion, would I so readily jump to dine with others?

Anyway, my initial response to the blog was an aversion to the closing quote: "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." What is that supposed to mean? I guess I just don't agree with that. In church last Sunday we were talking and praying about how our behavior reflects what we think, and what we think reflects what we believe. I suppose I can "just do it" (i.e. take action to do good...?), but even the desire or the willingness to take that action has to come from somewhere (i.e. belief).

For example, if I believe that God really does love the poor, then may lead me to think, "God loves the poor, I want to love what He loves," and then do something about it by a) researching poverty, writing to my state representatives to support the fight against poverty; b) investigate local poverty and pursue lending a hand in my community; c) finding a global poverty-fighting organization to support financially.

On the other hand, if I don't really believe that God loves the poor, or if it's not even "on my radar," then my thoughts and behavior will reflect that.

Okay, I'm not an expert. God can use whatever means He desires to align us with His heart and purposes, even if that's coming to believe something by doing it. I guess I just got annoyed with Jim's line. It sounds to me like it's trying too hard to be poetically profound, without really meaning anything significant or even true. Now THAT annoys ME.

Thanks for the post, Mare.

 
At 11:05 AM, Blogger Laura said...

I know Bono has become almost a cliche example of an active, influential, Christian of the world, but something I recently read made me respect him even more and realize what part of his appeal is for so many different people. Bono appeals to Christians, non-Christians, liberals and conservatives. He doesn't avoid even the most fundamentalist religious right leaders (worked successfully with Jerry Falwell) but manages to bring together those of very different points of view. I know he's become a cliche, especially lately, but I can't think of another public figure - conservative, liberal, man, woman, American or otherwise - that has been able to forward good causes that all Christians should rally behind without things turning devisive. I'm curious if anyone can think of someone else with that sort of impact, as far as public figures go....

 
At 12:42 PM, Blogger Mary said...

jon, you're right that i mean that we should not worry about defining ourselves with titles. i agree with the old adage that actions speak louder than words (i think words should still be loud, but actions should emphasize them).

asking me how i think i should live is a big question. but maybe an easy answer? is it not true that i should act justly, love mercy and walk humbly with my god? that i should love the lord my god with all my heart, soul, mind and strength? and that i should love my neighbor? i think we all know what that looks like, but why not discuss all the ways to do it? more discussion should be spent on this specific topic. how great would it be to have a roundtable discussion where we share ideas on what LOVING looks like?

sarah - amen. "And in that time, sharing a meal with a person communicated acceptance, and full identification with that individual - something more profound than our casual lunch dates tend to do here and now." i would love to live in a place where i didn't even consider what people thought about who i talk with, work with, etc,, where i didn't fear losing the acceptance of the world i've built for myself. cause honestly, all of that is such bull s$%*. didn't i say that it was my goal to LOVE my neighbor?

and, sarah, your comment about the quote. i think you have to consider his audience. jim knew he was talking to a largely socially-conscious christian crowd. i don't think he was worried about telling them about god's heart. i think the quote comes because he assumes we know and wants to push us to action.

for example, i know that god loves the poor. and every now and then i write my legislator regarding these issues. but i think jim's saying, essentially, "commit yourself to something bigger than you." i learn a lot of things about god's heart as i grow in my faith, but thinking on those things does not always lead to doing.

for me, i need to practice the little i know till it begins to infect my heart.

that's what i heard jim say.

and laura, good example of bono. for sure he's definitely the best leader i can see of this. but my guess is there are MANY, many people who do incredible work that go unnoticed all the time. remember in "before sunset"? there's this really good quote ...

Celine: Well, for example, I was working for this organization that helped villages in Mexico. And their concern was how to get the pencils sent to the kid in these
little country schools. It was not about big revolutionary ideas, it was about pencils!

"I say the people that do the real work and what's really said, in a way, is that... the people that are
the most giving, hard working and capable of making this world better, usually don't have the ego
and ambition to be a leader. They don't see the interest in superficial rewards, they don't care if their name ever appears in the press, they actually enjoy the process of helping others, they're in the moment!"

Anyway, Laura, that's just what came to mind when you talked about Bono. Actually, if you look at the Before Sunset script (select edit, find, "pencils" to get to this spot in the script), the conversation that follows is pretty awesome. And good for conversation.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, all.

 
At 1:26 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

heh... so i typed CCW into google to amuse myself and your blog popped up. probably one of those non-repeatable flukes. but way cool post about the sojourner's dude (jim wallis) -- i especially loved the quote "you're more likely to live your way into a new way of thinking than you are to think your way into a new way of living." i had to read it like four times before i had a clue what you were talking about but once i got it, i loved it.

oh - and speaking of bono, he's got a six page article and the cover of this month's Rolling Stone... his article (which can't avoid his faith) is right after the one about the fundamentalist agenda to get ID into high school science curriculums. i thought it was interesting how there was an article that attempted to prove the inevitability of admitting God does not exist... and the very next article gave credit to a man whose belief in God can't be avoided. There was even a quote from Bono about how many his songs are prayers... not just thoughts. Amazing where that boy gets himself.

Anyway, FWIW, cool blog and maybe I'll run into you at CCW sometime. say hi to me if you see me. :) Or drop me an email; jer1887-website at yahoo.com.

 
At 7:37 PM, Blogger cory said...

kara and i set out to "taste and see" what this whole movement was about this summer. we, too, were tired of being pigeonholed by believers and non-believers alike. and when the 04 election revealed the true allegiances of so many in our church, we began to investigate alternative approaches to manifestations of faith in public life. i mean, i knew matt did the sojo thing, but that was also during his "i love marx" phase. so i got the magazine, bought the book and immersed myself in wallis-ian religio-politics. then, i dove into the whole relevant thing, which is nothing if not cool...but maybe a little shallow. then it don miller came along, and brian mclaren, the patron saints of the emerging church (a phrase that always reminds me of a butterfly). so we marched on the white house with wallis and we sat under the tutelage of mclaren. we bought in. and we learned a lot, but we also came away with that old familiar feeling: this aint the silver bullet either. i think i am going to stop looking for the silver bullet just start actually praying every day, obeying the truth that i know to be true, and loving everyone i can. maybe that's a start. i don't know.

 
At 9:33 PM, Blogger Laura said...

Mary - it's time for an update. While I came to prompt something new for Mary, I also read Corye's newer comment, which I liked. I am such a fad Christian. To a smaller scale I have been through the same journey, reading books by one author or another seeming to hold some new truth or direction. I am so likely to pick up on a new fad that in the last year or two I have simply been too cynical and self-doubting (when it comes to making decisions about what I believe and don't) that I simply wallow in something like a passive agnosticism.

 
At 11:41 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mary, you might enjoy Paul Marshall's piece called "Jim Wallis’ Politics—or Lack Thereof: Why the religious left gets it wrong, and Wallis doesn’t get it."
The link is below. Wallis was recently interviewed on C-Span and it was interesting how his Biblical exegesis aligns so well with the Left. Namely, he believes Scripture is unclear on homosexuality and abortion, yet it is crystal clear on the matter of the Iraq war and GOVERNMENT intervention in the marketplace to enforce economic equality (ie. heavier taxes on the wealthy). He is the equivalent of Ralph Reed, namely a slappy for the Dem's like Ralphy is for the GOP. Unfortunately, you continue to rally in defense in Jim yet in doing so reveal politically driven interpretations of Scripture instead of historically rooted and reasonable viewpoints on these questions (ie. Aquinas, Calvin, Edwards, Piper Etc).

But as you once said: "I hope I get shot in the inner city for my faith."

http://www.ird-renew.org/atf/cf/%7B8548C466-7ECE-4AF1-B844-49C289CE5165%7D/2005_02_FF.PDF

 
At 2:01 PM, Blogger Mary said...

dear anonymous,

thanks for your remarks. first thing i noticed was that - just to make clear - i in no way HOPE to get shot for my faith. i think at that time i was seriously considering the dangers of immersing oneself in the deepest ghettos of the city and was talking myself into doing it. just to make it all clear ...

i'm looking forward to reading the pdf you linked. but again, for clarification's sake, i'm not trying to defend wallis. and honestly, i'm not trying to analyze his faith or his analysis of scripture to find out how potentially awful he could be. i believe in the separation of church and state. and there are a lot of good things about what wallis is saying.

but i suppose i am trying to think critically about what is good. i haven't met one person in all my life who i can fully trust as the authority on all things GODLY AND GOOD. so i listen to people and try to extract the good, you know?

i invite you to clarify your own thoughts. thanks for sharing. and feel free to share your name for community's sake :)

 

Post a Comment

<< Home