Quick Links:

Christian Progressive: A Lose-Lose Label

by: BlueCollar Daughter

Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 03:23:02 AM CDT


(BCD actually should have been upgraded to a frontpager already -- welcome to the team! - promoted by Joe Bodell)

For Christians who consider themselves political progressives, the expression "damned if you do, damned if you don't" is starting to hit a little too close to home.  Attacked by the conservative Religious Right as socialists and baby-killers, we seem more and more to also to draw slings and arrows from many on the ultra-liberal left. The debate over healthcare reform in the current administartion continues to be just one area where the those on the religious left are attacked coming and going.

A recent example is the response to progressive christian leader Rev. Jim Wallis' Faith Decalaration for Health Care Reform .  Wallis, a member of President Obama's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships wrote in the Huffington Post Wednesday...

BlueCollar Daughter :: Christian Progressive: A Lose-Lose Label
There is no one "right" religious position on how health care should look; but I believe there are some fundamental moral and even biblical principles on which to evaluate any final legislative agreement--principles on which many, even politically diverse, people of faith might agree. After the heat of the summer's confrontations over health care; it's time for a cooler fall debate. It's time for a re-set of the health care debate and a return to some basic principles could help.

Five Principles of Faith for Health Care Reform

1. Health, not sickness, is the will of God. We can see this from the story of the garden, in Genesis, where sickness never was, and from the vision of a city, in Revelation, in which death will be no more. When we are instruments of bringing about that good health, we are doing the work of God. The stories of Jesus healing people in the Gospels, of restoring people to physical wholeness and full participation in their community, always signaled God's presence.

2. United we stand, divided we fall. The division between those who can afford adequate coverage and those who cannot is a threat to our unity and a threat to the health of our neighbors and our nation. Forty-six million in our country are uninsured and millions more who are, still can't keep up with their bills. Our moral and religious standards say that no one should be left out of a system simply because they cannot afford good health. The common good requires a system that is accessible to all who need it.

3. Patients not profits. No one should be discriminated against in their health care because they are sick. Our faith mandates that we give extra consideration and help to those who are sick, but every time an insurance company denies coverage for "pre-existing conditions," excluded ailments, or confusing fine print, their profits go up. Every doctor I know decided to pursue medicine to help people. The health insurance industry makes a profit by not helping, but our faith requires it.

4. Life and liberty must both be protected. The health care system should protect the sanctity and dignity of life in accordance with existing law and the current rules; and the prohibition on federal funding of abortions should be consistently and diligently applied to any legislation. Strong "conscience" protections should be enacted for health care workers to ensure they have the liberty to exercise their moral and religious beliefs in their profession. Evidence suggests that supporting low-income and pregnant women with adequate health care increases the number of women who chose to carry their child to term, so if we do reform right, we can reduce abortion in America. While religious people don't all agree on all the issues of abortion, we should agree that it must not be allowed to derail the crucial need for comprehensive health care reform.

5. For the next generation, health care reform should be based on firm financial foundations. Health care is a vital and wise investment for the future of our families and society. But, the way we pay for it should be fair and equitable and seek to lessen the burden on succeeding generations--both in bringing everyone into the system and by bringing the costs of health care under control over time. Our religious traditions suggest that social justice and fiscal responsibility must not be pitted against each other, but balanced together in sound public policy that is affordable for individuals and for society.

It wasn't long before Adele Stan, Washington Bureau Chief of progressive news magazine AlterNet(which claims to "inspire action and advocacy on the environment, human rights and civil liberties, social justice, media, health care issues") said of Wallis,

Rev. Jim Wallis says he's progressive. That got him a seat on a White House council despite his opposition to abortion -- which he's using to monkey-wrench health-care reform...it's time to send Jim Wallis packing.

Rev. Wallis is also Editor-in-Chief of  Sojourners Magazine  and a member of the Red Letter Christian, a group who describe themselves as

A network of effective, progressive, Christian communicators urging an open, honest and public dialogue on issues of faith and politics. We believe and seek to put in to action the red letter words in the Holy Bible spoken by Jesus. The goal of the group is to advance the message that our faith cannot be reduced to only two hot button social issues - abortion and homosexuality. Fighting poverty, caring for the environment, advancing peace, promoting strong families, and supporting a consistent ethic of life are all critical moral and biblical values.

Like Wallis, faithful Christians belief the Bible to be literally and infallibly true.  For many liberals, this complex theology is boiled down to a single-sentence political dismissal of our voice: Christians do not support abortion or gay marriage.  As progressives who believe the Bible as a strict guideline for the just and loving treatment of our fellow wo/men, we are panned by the Religious Right as godless pseudo-Christians who have diluted the faith.

It's long past time for the left and right to see American social policy as more than just the two questions of abortion and gay marriage.

Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Tweet This!
Religious Left (0.00 / 0)
Interesting post.  Why can't a Progressive Christian support what aspects of the progressive ideals they believe in without being attacked for not also supporting issues that they don't agree with?  Not supporting something does not mean that you actively seek to legislate against it.  Vegetarians don't seek to create legislation to prohibit the consumption of meat.  

I must respectfully disagree with Blue Collar Daughter (0.00 / 0)
Blue-collar daughter writes:
Like Wallis, faithful Christians belief the Bible to be literally and infallibly true.

I was raised evangelical and graduated from the conservative Wheaton College in Illinois, Billy Graham and Denny Hastert's alma mater. My father had a Ph.D from University of Chicago and was a professor of hermanuetics and Greek at Bethel Seminary in Arden Hills--a Baptist school--and my mom taught at the college. Their scholarly specialty was how to interpret the Bible from the original Greek and Aramaic texts. I grew up in a conservative Baptist culture where I was born again, went to church three times a week, Bible camp in the summer. The whole nine yards.

And honest to God, none of the Baptist pastors I had growing up preached that the Bible was "literally and infallibly true." My parents certainly didn't believe that. Neither did most of my professors at Wheaton College. And neither do I. And neither do most of my Christian friends.

The idea that the Bible is literally and infallibly true is limited to a fairly small subculture of conservative fundamentalists and evangelicals. It is not part of traditional Christian doctrine. In fact, it's only come up in the last 300 or so years---remember Christianity is a 2,000 year tradition--when science took off and some in the church, in reaction, started applying the scientific standards of literal,factual truth to Scripture.

Science and religion are both wonderful disciplines, but they ask very different questions. I don't believe in applying the scientific method to religion or religious interpretation to science. They're compatible, but they're quite different. Trying to prove that the Bible is literally true is like trying to prove Shakespeare is literally true.  They're both true, but it doesn't have to be literal truth.

This was the heart of the Scopes trial in the 1920s. When the fundamentalists lost, they retreated into their own sub-culture. And to be honest, the literal truth of the Bible wasn't a dominant issue in evangelical culture again  until 50 years later.  

In the early 70s, ultra-conservatives in the Southern Baptist denomination began a witch hunt to purge so-called "liberal" seminary professors, pastors and missionaries from the church. It was a very McCarthy-like phenomenon and it spread to other Baptist and conservative white Christian groups. The issue was whether the Bible was "inerrant" which I suppose is a softer, more nuanced way of talking about literal truth.whether or not the Bible is literally true.  

But I believe the real goal was political as opposed to theological. Conservative white Christians, especially in the South, were still really PISSED about the civil rights, voting rights and school integration issues which up-ended their perceived rightful order of things. They believed all of this had been shoved down their throats by elite, intellectual liberal types. So inerrancy served as their proxy for launching a culture war in their own denomination, which I think was consciously or subconsciously rooted in race, but went on to be against gays and abortion as well. (But that was mostly starting in the 1980s.)

Blue-collar Daughter also writes:

Attacked by the conservative Religious Right as socialists and baby-killers, we (Progressive Christians) seem more and more to also to draw slings and arrows from many on the ultra-liberal left.

But I'm a faithful Christian---I'm now Episcopalian and I'm married to an ordained Episcopal minister. We go to church every Sunday. And

Even conservative Christians who say they take the Bible literally don't seem to live it literally. They eat shrimp and pork and go to church with their heads uncovered and violate many other literal commandments from the Bible.


Lynnell still posting..... (0.00 / 0)
Whoops, I somehow must have hit the Post button accidentally.......so my first long comment was still in draft form when it somehow got posted but oh well.....

Blue-Collar daughter wrote:

For Christians who consider themselves political progressives, the expression "damned if you do, damned if you don't" is starting to hit a little too close to home.  Attacked by the conservative Religious Right as socialists and baby-killers, we seem more and more to also to draw slings and arrows from many on the ultra-liberal left.

And where I was going with this is that I'm a politically progressive Christian who has spent plenty of time among the "ultra-liberal left" and I don't seem to draw any slings and arrows.

But then again, I don't think the Bible is literally and infallibly true. (Neither does Jim Wallis, by the way. I know him personally--we go back 30 years, I once worked for his magazine.)And neither do most conservative Christians because they continue to eat pork, shrimp and go to church with their heads uncovered, etc.

I also support gay rights----I could argue precisely because of Jesus' teachings in the gospel. And I support abortion rights as well, which Jesus never mentioned, so it's sort of a moot point in terms of Biblical infallibility.

I disagree with Wallis on abortion and gay rights, but hey, these are not key Biblical issues and people of good will and faith can have diferent opinions.

The whole meme that that the left, even the ultra-liberal left, disses Christians is old and tired. A few people do. Most don't.

Sorry for the long rant and accidental posting.


Response (0.00 / 0)
It is good to hear opinion from someone who is both Christian and unafraid to voice their liberal political beliefs.  From your bio I would describe you as likely part of the removed world of academia, where it is definitely easier to be understood and accepted as a progressive Christian.  Among the rank and file this is just not so. This is not an old meme as you say, but a sad truism.  The attacks on Jim Wallis are just one example, and I think most of us who follow faith and religion can name dozens more.  If it is not so in your own church or social circle, consider yourself fortunate and among very enlightened individauls.

As far as the literal truth of the Bible, and its infallibility.  I think the fact that Wallis is a member of the Red Letter Society shows he embraces a literal and unerring truth in the New Testament.  The word Christian should signal to a reader that of course the author is not referring to Old Testament covenant, which we all believe to be made new by our covenant in Christ (ie: eating pork, etc.) .


RE: L. Mickelsen comment (0.00 / 0)
Respectfully, another way that persons of Chrisitan faith discredit each other is by insinuating that a belief in the infallibility and full truth of the Bible can't be reconciled with higher learning and an educated mind. The opposite is, in fact, true. It takes a very open mind to embrace the radical and revolutionary ideas of the New Testament.

Also, there is no highly defined "Religious Left" with a cohesive platform, because this just ain't in the nature of progressive Christian belief.  My point exactly is that we all find a blueprint for social justice in our faith, and try our best to act upon it accordingly in our political steps.  Very few progressives of any faith would suggest we legislate belief by laws such as those which ban gay unions, myself including (and have said as much in previous posts).

bluecollardaughter


Where's the line? (0.00 / 0)
BCD, you didn't link directly to the Wallis story on Alternet so I can't see it in context, and that was you're only example of disrespect from the left. So what I'm wondering is just what constitutes disrespect? I imagine "all Christians are stupid" is clearly disrespectful, but what about "I don't believe in any religion"? That shouldn't be taken as disrespect I would think. So where is the line?

 

Event Calendar
February 2010
(view month)
S M T W R F S
* 01 02 03 04 05 06
07 08 09 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 * * * * * *
<< (add event) >>

 Joe Bodell

Liberal Blog Network
Agonist
All Spin Zone
AlterNet
AMERICAblog
American Street
ArchPundit
BAGNewsnotes
BartCop
Blogging of the Pres
BlogACTIVE
Bluegrass Report
Bluegrass Roots
Blue Indiana
BlueJersey
Blue Mass. Group
BlueOregon
BlueNC
Bob Geiger
Booman
Brendan Calling
BRAD Blog
Buckeye State Blog
Burnt Orange Report
Capitol Annex
Carpetbagger Report
Chris Floyd
Clay Cane
Calitics
Cliff Schecter
Confined Space
Corrente
Crooks and Liars
culture kitchen
Cursor
Daily Kos
David Corn
Dem Bloggers
Democrats.com
Deride and Conquer
Democratic Underground
Digby
DovBear
Drudge Retort
Ed Cone
ePluribus Media
Eschaton
Ezra Klein
Feministe
Feministing
Firedoglake
Fired Up
First Draft
Frameshop
Green Mountain Daily
Greg Palast
Hoffmania
Horse's Ass
Hughes for America
In Search of Utopia
Is That Legal?
Jesus' General
Jon Swift
Juan Cole
Keystone Politics
Kick! Making Politics Fun
KnoxViews
Lawyers, Guns & Money
Left Coaster
Left in the West
Liberal Avenger
Liberal Oasis
Loaded Orygun
Mahablog
Majikthise
Make Them Accountable
Matthew Yglesias
MaxSpeak
Media Girl
Michigan Liberal
MN Campaign Report
Minnesota Monitor
MyDD
My Left Nutmeg
My Left Wing
My Two Sense
Nathan Newman
Needlenose
Nevada Today
News Dissector
Newshoggers
News Hounds
Nitpicker
Oliver Willis
onegoodmove
OpenLeft
PageOneQ
Pam's House Blend
Pandagon
People's Rep. of Seabrook
PinkDome
Politics1
Political Animal
Political Wire
Poor Man Institute
Prairie State Blue
Progressive Historians
Raw Story
Reno Discontent
Republic of T
Rhode Island's Future
Rochester Turning
Rocky Mountain Report
Rod 2.0
Rude Pundit
Sadly, No!
Saterical Political Report
Seeing The Forest
Shakesville
SirotaBlog
SistersTalk
Skippy
Slacktivist
Smirking Chimp
SquareState
Suburban Guerrilla
Swing State Project
Talking Points Memo
Talk Left
Tapped
Taylor Marsh
Tattered Coat
Texas Kaos
The Albany Project
The Blue State
The Democratic Daily
The Hollywood Liberal
The Reaction
The Talent Show
This Modern World
Town Called Dobson
Wampum
War and Piece
WashBlog
Watching the Watchers
West Virginia Blue
Young Philly Politics
Young Turks




Premium Blog Ads

Hate ads? Make them go away -- Subscribe to MPP!

2010 DFL CONVENTION SUPERDELEGATE TRACKER





MN-PLAN Ads

Blog Ads




Powered by: SoapBlox