Secretly being liberal.
Jul 23rd by Jon(I don’t write about politics that often because it’s not a topic I can write about very well. There are so many good political blogs that I tend to avoid it. Plus, political comments usually get really ugly, really quickly. But my friend Rachel is going to change that. Today, she checks in with a funny look at the secret life of Christian liberals. Enjoy.)
Last month, Jon Acuff wrote a piece for CNN.com about Christians treating secular media like Satan’s newspaper. A faithful reader of both SCL and The New York Times, I laughed along until about midway through the article when Jon joked that Christians are “pretty sure Fox News is baptizing people in their lobby,” at which point I completely lost my sense of humor.
It is an unspoken rule among liberals that only one Jon is allowed to make us laugh about Fox News—and it’s Stewart, not Acuff.
But how was Jon supposed to know? He’s an evangelical Christian, which means he is statistically obligated to have only one liberal friend.
So as a Christian and an occasional democrat…(yes, we do exist)…I’ve decided to be that friend, offering SCL a brief list of stuff liberal progressive Christians like:
1. Calling ourselves “progressive” instead of “liberal’
The word liberal (like evolution and sex) carries with it negative connotations in the Christian subculture, and is often used in the context of play-by-play accounts from a pastors or Sunday school teachers about the dangers of competitive slippery slope sliding. Progressive is better. People like Jesus and Donald Miller are considered progressive. Progressive communicates the fact that we’re not headed down, but forward…and just a little to the left.
2. Assuming our daily fair-trade latte from Starbucks makes us committed to social justice
I may drive a gas-guzzling clunker to Wal-mart to buy a trunk full of out-of season fruit, but I’m certain that the steam pouring off of my free trade Cinnamon Dolce Latte is a sweet aroma to God.
3. Agreeing with the Democratic Party on everything except abortion
I am one of many progressive Christians in the unhappy predicament of supporting things like health care reform and environmental stewardship, while remaining steadfastly pro-life. To compensate for our insecurity about this situation, we progressives like to try to one-up conservative pro-lifers by noting that we’re also against the death penalty and war. This does little to actually advance the conversation, which usually ends with people yelling at one another about who is being more judgmental. Sorry about that.
4. NPR
To borrow a metaphor from a friend, we progressives are pretty sure that Ira Glass is mystically distributing the Eucharist through the airwaves during “This American Life.”
So, what would you add to the list? What else do progressive Christians like? (Conservatives, please don’t say “going to hell,” as it kinda hurts our feelings and messes with the whole Christian unity thing.)
(Rachel Held Evans is a liberal progressive Christian from Dayton, Tennessee, home of the Scopes Monkey Trial of 1925. Her first book, “Evolving in Monkey Town
Comments
That is not an answer to my question at all.
Well, I hate that I'm acting like a hypocrite (even though I believe that I am one, and everyone else is one, too). I apologize for that.
I am challenging you on your theories, but only because I thought you were a person that would challenge others' theories (I think you've provided a good sample in the comments here), and that doing so is helping the truth to be better seen and understood.
I'm not challenging your worth as a person, your character, your intentions. I don't believe that the theories we cling to for the moment, because those who really are seeking the truth have higher error rates than people who don't bother.
I've conceded that, as a fellow scientist, my beliefs are not all scientific; some faith is in there, too. I am trying to use science to judge science and I feel that you have initiated science in the discussion. I am not trying to attack you at all. I know some people who are literal 6-day creationists and I know even more people who deny a Creator. I am not attacking any of those beliefs. That said, I am sure that my theories are not entirely correct.
You probably know the greatest scientific historian/philosopher Thomas Kuhn better than I do. I like what he says about scientific theory: we can't say if a theory is right (tip to Godel's Incompleteness) but we can say which theory fits the facts–as we know them–better.
I hope that is the process we are collaborating on. I think I have a lot I can learn from you.
I don't mind challenges, but I do mind it when I get a sense that someone is just skimming what I say so he can rattle off a quick knee-jerk response. It was pretty obvious that you were doing that earlier, when you totally mangled the entire concept I was talking about and thought that "Stone Age" somehow meant "the last 800 years".
I confessed my own misunderstanding above. That was my error. I had only understood your tribal group evolutionary theory, and did not realize that it did not explain Khan, Stalin or Mao, the examples of whom we were speaking.
I've minimized referencing any specific theists to you up to now, save Jesus Himself, because I did not think that they would have much that you would want to hear. Today, Don Carson–as smart as any scientist I've ever read–has an interesting post on inter-tribal warfare in ancient Israel. Would his analysis of a historical time in ancient Israel align with your tribal evolutionary theory, that has been supplanted by national institutional intertia:
http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/loveofgod/201...
Thanks for your investment in this. I find it eye opening.
Wow, the formatting is brutal. I'm afraid we're going to have to stop soon just because it's becoming unreadable. However, I apologize if the tone became harsh; I just reacted rather negatively to your careless response to my earlier post.
As for the post, it does illustrate what I'm talking about: when groups co-operate, they live. When they fight amongst themselves, they die. United we stand, divided we fall. That's the group ethos behind the origin of morality, which we are now clumsily trying to make work in our modern giant high-tech societies.
Could you define poor? Is it "G-8 Poor", like people who live on under $50 per day? Or is it "Bottom Billion Poor", like people who live on under $1 per day. Because the former would be rich to the latter.
It seems I am running into a lot of resistance in getting a straight answer to my question. First you quote a blog which hilariously describes Arizona as having one of the rosiest "economic outlooks" in the nation, whatever that means. Then you tell me that I have to provide a precise definition of "poor".
When Jesus speaks of giving to the poor, do you ask similar questions? "Please define exactly what level of poverty I am required to sympathize with?"
I've said many times that true followers of Christ will be: feeding the hungry, giving potable water to the thirsty, clothing the naked, visiting the imprisoned. I say that because that is what Jesus told His followers.
The median person in the US (I use the US, because you said 'state', not 'province' or something else) under the poverty line has positive home equity, two cars, a cell phone, cable television, and other stuff. That is a different level of poor than my sponsored kids in Rwanda. Would your policy prescriptions differ for a person at the poverty line in the US differ from a person in Haiti?
If 'poor' is basic need-based, then that seems to be a good definition. But 'poor', when used by politicians and other elites, can often be envy-based.
You allude to a sympathy based definition. I think its worth defining. Otherwise, we'll be talking past each other, which is not so efficient.
Whoa, the media person under the poverty line in the US actually owns a house? Where do you get this information from?
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2004/01/...
http://austrianeconomists.typepad.com/weblog/2009...
Michael: I'm sure these data are not perfect, just like our government measures for employment and inflation. I submit them as such, and if you have statistically superior data, I would love to see it. I don't put the same kind of faith in stats as I do in God. Here's one good presentation why that is so, basically the experts don't know how to keep their data from enormous bias:
http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/12/...
This also explains why I put less faith in experts than others.
I did a little searching, and found this claim, which does not completely confirm my assertion above but does support it indirectly:
In 1995, the median net
worth of American households was
$11,773, excluding home equity, and
$40,200 if home equity was included.
This is from http://www.prb.org/pdf/PovertyInAmerica.pdf, which is a pro-welfare, income gap narrowing group.
Most pro-welfare folks will not want to point that wealth from home ownership, because it would weaken their case for policy change. Props to the PRB for trying to be more objective.
My favorite example of statistical bias is from the NY Times. They put up a graph that showed income taxes paid by income quintile, but mysteriously left off the lowest quintile. Why? Not completely sure, but it would have had to show that the taxes paid in that quintile would be negative, that these households are net recipients of the EITC and CTC.
The real data (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/100xx/doc10068/effective_tax_rates_2006.pdf) would have let the air out of the article.
Christians need to call 'bias!' on each other more (in love and cooperation, of course), if we are really going to make a difference in this world. Otherwise, we are just as unaccountable as we accuse others–regardless of political flavoring.
Here is an interesting take on what folks in the lowest income quintile spend, as opposed to what they earn:
The bottom fifth earned just $9,974, but spent nearly twice that — an average of $18,153 a year. How is that possible? A look at the far right-hand column of the consumption chart, labeled “financial flows,” shows why: those lower-income families have access to various sources of spending money that doesn’t fall under taxable income.
http://stuffchristianslike.net/2010/07/secretly-b...
Of course, focusing too much on income alone can distort our view of poverty as well. We know that income mobility in the US is quite accelerated, that most people usually start out in the lower two quintiles, enjoy a few years in the upper two quintiles, and then fall back down a quintile or two later in life. If you want links for that, too, I can get 'em.
http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2009/03/first_lad...
look for the cellphone
I agree, christians are not superior. It's a big turnoff.
Maybe Christ is superior, though. That is the hypothesis that I subscribe to, but I don't have any data that makes it a mathematical or scientific slam dunk.
Christians are to point to Christ, but we often obscure Him. I liken it to the unintended consequences of well intentioned policy, such as Hoover/FDR policies.
Interesting presentation from this year's Willow Creek Global Leadership Summit:
http://www.timschraeder.com/2010/08/05/beyond-eco...
In summary, China wants to be more like the US because the US is the most christian and economically powerful economy (this correlates with other economic superpowers in history also being the most christian, such as Britain, France, Holland, Prussia/Germany, Spain, Constantinople, and Rome).
There are those here who seem to want the secular socialist verve of Western Europe.
I'm not sure if Europe wants to be like China. I think Europe prefers the economic domination it enjoyed when it was more christian.
Maybe all of us here should want to be more christian than european.
I actually wear the liberal badge with honor. I kind of don't like the progressive term because it has been bastardized by Beck. But since being liberal or progressive causes such consternation to conservative Christians I'd just prefer to be called liberal. It puts a smile on my face.
Oh for Bob's sake, a study from THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION? The radical far-right political "think tank" founded by Coors? Are you serious? Considering their history of outright lies? http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20030227.html http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/astevenson/the_... http://old.mediatransparency.org/pdarecipientprof...
The US Census Bureau defines poverty as an individual earning $9,393 or less and $14,680 or less for a family of three. Would you like to try running a household and raising a child on less than $14680 per year? More importantly, returning to my original question which you are gymnastically avoiding, if you were to try doing so, would you want to try it in a state with lots of social services, or almost none?
I'm asking for better data. I agree Heritage has its biases, just like other institutions, like CAP or Brookings. I'm not really interested in engaging in fallacies of subject change. Let's not attack here. Let's find theories that fit the facts better. I'm asking for better data. You wouldn't base your theories on the absence of data, so point me in the right direction.
What about the billion people living on less than $1 a day, Michael?
What about them? I'm sure they would LOVE to live in a state with social services. You're still fastidiously avoiding my question.
How is the data even relevant to the question? Does it even matter precisely how poor you are? I asked a simple question: if you were poor, would you rather live in a state with social services, or without them? Why would the answer change depending on how poor you are?
We can quibble all day about just how poor the poor people are, but I still don't see how it is relevant to the question. Why would their answer change?
Because there is a big difference between a person living on $1 per day and one living on $15 per day?
We can talk about how christians fall short. But we need to balance that with christians who do more because of their faith. Such as these folks:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/08/world/asia/08af...
No, I am trying to define poor. We can agree that $1 per day or less is poor, that 20% of the world is poor.
It is the people that are living on $10-20 per day. Are they poor? I am trying to answer the question.