RSS
More Feeds












God's Politics

An Evangelical Trojan Horse in the Democratic Party?

by Brian McLaren 11-12-2009

A recent Daily Kos post asks this question: Does the Evangelical movement belong in the Democratic Party?

Of course, many Evangelicals — probably most — can answer that question without a moment’s thought: absolutely not. The Republican Party is still the only party for them: abortion, gay marriage, and freedom of corporations from governmental accountability (which is what “small government” often means in practice) are their three litmus test issues, trumping all other issues to the level of annoying distractions — whether we’re talking about preserving the planet for future generations, working for justice for the poor, or pursuing peace through means other than military and economic domination.

But the Daily Kos question is being asked of Democrats, not Evangelicals: “Is a growing Christian base of leaders and voters good for the party?” As a registered Democrat from an Evangelical background, I think there’s an erroneous assumption in play in the Daily Kos post:

There is a growing movement since 2004 of evangelical leaders embracing the Democratic Party. Many feel that Bush used this base to get him elected, then turned on them.

The assumption seems to be that Bush wasn’t conservative enough for these Evangelicals, so like jilted lovers, they decided to date the nemesis of their old flame, bringing their three familiar preoccupations –- anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, and anti-corporate accountability — with them unchanged. That faulty diagnosis seems to be shared in recent speculation that the Stupak amendment — which went beyond the abortion neutrality called for by all the Christian progressives I’m aware of — was added to the House health-care bill as part of a long-standing plan by progressive religious forces. Those speculations are undermined by the fact that the amendment was added to bring some hesitant conservative Democrats on board, but it took Christian progressives by surprise as much as anyone.

However, Evangelicals like me who have migrated away from the Republican Party have done so not as part of a Trojan horse conspiracy, but because we embraced a broader range of moral issues than just the three anti-s imposed upon us by conservative Evangelical and Republican leaders. True, very few if any of us could be considered pro-abortion even if we are pro-choice. True, we differ on whether we think civil unions or marriage equality would be the better response to sexuality issues, but we want one or the other. And true, we don’t have a plan (yet) to strengthen accountability for both big government and big corporations, especially when the former is in the pocket of the latter, but we want accountability for both. In these ways we are typical of big-tent Democratic diversity — with a shared set of general values but differences on details; and as such, we can bring a great deal of vitality to the Democratic Party.

Meanwhile, some Democrats may be tempted to define their identity in exactly the way their Republican counterparts would like them to: as the anti-religion, pro-abortion rights, pro-tax party. They interpret the abortion limitations of the House’s recently (and narrowly) passed health-care bill as a danger sign: The religious camel’s nose is in the tent, so soon the whole tent will come crashing down. Far better, they may believe, to keep the camel outside, even if that means the tent must become more narrow, meaning more secular and faith-averse. I hope this won’t be the case. We already have one party that seems to be stuck on the same old polarities; we don’t need two.

Brian McLarenBrian McLaren (brianmclaren.net) is a speaker and author, most recently of Everything Must Change and Finding Our Way Again.

Share or bookmark this post:
  • email
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Mixx
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
advertisement


Comment Code of Conduct

I will express myself with civility, courtesy, and respect for every member of the Sojourners online community, especially toward those with whom I disagree—even if I feel disrespected by them. (Romans 12:17-21)

I will express my disagreements with other community members' ideas without insulting, mocking, or slandering them personally. (Matthew 5:22)

I will not exaggerate others' beliefs nor make unfounded prejudicial assumptions based on labels, categories, or stereotypes. I will always extend the benefit of the doubt. (Ephesians 4:29)

I will hold others accountable by clicking "report" on comments that violate these principles, based not on what ideas are expressed but on how they're expressed. (2 Thessalonians 3:13-15)

I understand that comments reported as abusive are reviewed by Sojourners staff and are subject to removal. Repeat offenders will be blocked from making further comments. (Proverbs 18:7)

  • DavidHawkins
    Jesus is the Word. The Bible is only the word. They are not one and the same. My faith is in Jesus.
  • hammerud
    He was One of a kind, who passed truth on to those who were not one of
    a kind. We're to pass it on (2 Tim 2:2).
  • hammerud
    I oppose messages from McLaren that undermine Scripture, which is
    what Satan did from the beginning in Genesis "yea, hath God said."
    Jesus confronted the Pharisees in Mark 7 regarding their handling of
    Scripture, which was to "put it aside" and "make it of no effect."
    That is what McLaren does in his idea that it is arrogant to say you
    have truth. I believe such a communication is an attempt from the
    dark side to disarm Christians of the powerful weapon God has given in
    the Word. I don't know his heart, but I see what he communicates as
    moving away from "sound doctrine." That is how I see it. I am all
    for reaching out to the lost in creative ways, but not at the expense
    of truth. Also, faith is exalted in Scripture, not doubt. I know the
    Emergent Church Movement includes the idea that we exalt doubt over
    faith. Well, Scripture does not move in that direction. Anyway, that
    is what I think. I can be irritating and frustrating though. You got
    me there.
  • myfanwy
    Brian's thrust is that it is arrogant to say you have and know the truth. Well, Jesus didn't think so.

    But Jesus DID have and know the truth, so of course he wasn't BEING arrogant. He did everything out of love. But he was one of a kind.
  • DavidHawkins
    "Even the kindest, gentlest shepherd sometimes needs to throw rocks at the wolves who come in sheep’s clothing."

    If you are going to live by this then you need to be absolutely certain it is a wolf at which you throw stones and not a sheep (even one dressed in wolves clothing). When I read this I couldn't help but think of Jesus response when the law authorized some men to stone a woman. Jesus is not reported to have asked her whether she violated the law (did she deserve the punishment). He did not question the gathered men on whether they had a legitimate case for the stoning (the Mosaic standard is pretty clear about crime & punishment). What Jesus did contravened the law; he prevented the men from giving her what she deserved.

    I spend time regularly with people who been on the receiving end of many stones from Christians. I talk frequently with people who seem to believe that is what Christians do best. It's what distinguishes us from the heathen.

    I am not an adherent of McLaren. I haven't read any of his books and have come across his thoughts only in passing on the internet. Some of them I find more than acceptable -- "I believe people are saved not by objective truth, but by Jesus. Their faith isn’t in their knowledge, but in God." Some I find reasonable, such as: "Our interpretations reveal less about God or the Bible than they do about ourselves. They reveal what we want to defend, what we want to attack, what we want to ignore, what we're unwilling to question...". Some I find questionable: "I don’t believe making disciples must equal making adherents to the Christian religion." Others I find difficult or even troubling: I'm not sure I can go along with the "Hell does not exist" thinking and am roundly disturbed by some of what I've heard about his political leanings (I doubt Dems have any more to contribute to Christianity than Repubs do).

    But I can't jump on board the bandwagon labeling him a heretic. I live out my salvation with fear and trembling and doubt, so I can't throw the first stone.

    This love thing cuts in every direction. What it demands is both foolish and extravagant. The implicit meaning of "love those who hate you" is to also love those you would otherwise hate. I don't see where Jesus called on his followers to throw stones at those who might harm them, rather he told them to embrace them, to sit down with them, to love them.

    I don't hate those Christians who are quick to cast stones, I simply find them irritating and frustrating. They hinder the work of the kingdom far more than any supposed false teacher because besides hurting those on the receiving end they also build a wall between the love of Jesus and others who need that love.
  • hammerud
    David -- I never said all can be known or that we know it fully. Not
    sure how you came up with that. 1 Cor 13 says now "we know in part."
    There is all sorts of mystery in God, His Son, and their work. Psalm
    145 says "God's greatness is unsearchable;" and Scripture also says
    "His judgments are unsearchable" and "His understanding is infinite."
    He has revealed some things to us and we KNOW those things. In 1
    Corinthinans it says "He has given us an understanding," and "we have
    the mind of Christ." What I see in McLaren and the Emergent Church
    stuff is fulfillment of the Scripture that says, "the time will come
    when they will not endure sound doctrine." We can, from the
    Scripture, know and understand sound doctrine.

    David speaking by the Holy Spirit in Psalms says "I hate every false
    way," and "I hate those who regard lying vanities." So there is some
    tension in Scripture when you point to Luke 6:35 and "all Scripture is
    given by inspiration of God..."

    I find it a little strange that you come at me this way and then point
    the finger at me for coming at McLaren etc in the same way. This love
    thing is a blade that cuts in more than one direction. Anyway, I
    never said I know it all or know it all fully, but I do know some
    things, and that has nothing to do with arrogance. It has to with
    "holding forth the word of life." Also, converting people is the work
    of God, as it says in John 6. We can water and sow, but God gives the
    increase. I love people enough to share truth with them and, as it
    says in Psalm 19, "the word of the Lord converts the soul."

    I'd have to study "the kingdom prepared for you thing... I don't know
    off the top of my head and I'm heading to work now.

    Having said all of this stuff. I do sense that you are a brother in
    Christ, David. God bless you.
  • DavidHawkins
    There is, then, no mystery in God, his son, or their work. There are no questions that can't be answered by those who have the right translation and a copious memory for verses. God is not something other, alien in unfathomable ways. He is, in the end, something that can be contained in a book and a brain. There is no room for doubt or even questions, because not only can all be known, it is known by those with a direct conduit to the mind of God.

    By the way, what did Jesus mean when he said that someone who gave the least of his servants a glass of water would inherit "the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world."? (NIV)

    I believe that there is such a thing as finding the TRUTH, but finding it and knowing it as fully as you claim sounds a bit like hubris. Jesus is my savior doesn't mean I know every precise meaning and intent of his words. Many church leaders have insisted that having Christ in your heart doesn't mean you hear his voice in your head. To claim to know completely and clearly sounds like arrogance to me. It would be funny were it not so sad that, in your words, a difference of opinion means THEY are wrong. I guess they can't back it up with KJV prooftexts. Good thing they are condemned already. Does that get you a pass on Luke 6:35?

    Finally, I must disagree in the name of Jesus that people are reached by hearing the truth. They are reached by love. Love has room for grace and forgiveness. Truth, while it may be the final destination, has no room for those squishy things because it is pure by its very nature. It either is or isn't. Thank goodness God sent his son to a world that had already rejected his TRUTH.
  • letjusticerolldown
    Well, I don't know. I asked some questions--so I am not sure I made an abundantly clear point. I think you may be acknowledging there are times when it is ethically legitimate to make an unwanted physical imposition on a person--without letting those words come out of your mouth.
    An intervention to keep the woman from jumping might be legitimate. An intervention to keep a pregnant woman might be legitimate. They are, however, two distinct situations--and one does demand we consider the ethical status of the life she is carrying. A more frequent real scenario is women who are under court supervision who are pregnant and engaged in behaviors (e.g. drug abuse) harmful to the fetus. Is it justified for the Court to demand she adjust her behavior for the sake of the unborn??
  • JaneinWNY
    LJRD, I still think you would have made a valid point without making your hypothetical woman pregnant. She might say it's her body to do with as she wants, but I would draw the line at letting herself jump off a bridge.

    Jane
  • letjusticerolldown
    Maybe it is not a "trap." Common Loon clearly asks for language that does not reinforce polarized extremes and false choices.

    I think it good for daughter to be intentional with her sexuality. I assume there are men in the life of your family also exercising rights and responsibilities.

    In my extended family there are 22 adults and nine marriages. So far we have managed life so all the children have been conceived and birthed in marriage; and with no abortions. I think this a great blessing and pray our family, all Jesus-followers, somehow give and richly receive from all those around us. I don't think this a rare story--but sometimes the media seems to portray such as odd.
  • letjusticerolldown
    Doesn't your intervention impose a demand on the woman's choice about her body. Your original statement was pretty absolutist so not sure how you get to the intervention??

    OK, the scenario is dramatic. How much more dramatic though than the 100,000 November abortions--a practice, in aggregate, making women and men and sacred life whole??

    Is a society nothing more that a whole bunch of me's guaranteeing I can do with me as I please. My life? God's life? My Baby? God's Baby? Our Baby?
  • debbie061653
    Um. Answer to first question. No, I oppose elective abortions in the third trimester. Should a woman have the right to abort their fetus at any point up to the moment of birth? Oh, the drama! I'm seeing a "trap" here, so give me some wiggle room, okay? What I'm trying to say is that I don't feel we have the right to decide for any woman when to get pregnant or if she does, make her carry the fetus to full term if she doesn't feel she's able. That's HER decision. Not mine, not yours. I'm also a mom with a 21 year old daughter. She's going to school right now and a pregnancy at this point in time would literally be a mistake. So, together, we have used the tools available so she doesn't become pregnant. Contraception? Ever hear of it? Guess what? It works. And as an added benefit, the terrible mood swings she has experienced with her periods, have at the most been eliminated. So my friend, that's my take. And my daughter will become pregnant when she "wants" to, not because of a mistake.
  • debbie061653
    What does it say? It "says" hypocrites, that's what. Yup, deny others but it's okay for them! LOL.
  • debbie061653
    Would I intervene to "save the child"? My answer would be to save both. Their lives are intertwined at that point, the baby hasn't been born yet. So...there's no saving the fetus without saving the mom. Hm, interesting. You set a "trap", however you fell into it. I noticed you never mentioned anything about the pregnant woman @ 9 months. Yeah, I figured that out too. How dramatic! Pregnant woman, bridge, river yipes! But no mention of saving her though. My take. Both lives are sacred!
  • letjusticerolldown
    I was trying to confirm with Debbie whether she considered stopping a woman from killing herself and baby to be justified--or a wrongful coercion on the woman's right to do what she wanted to do with her body.
  • That part is true. There is a difference between not preventing something like that versus promoting it. So in regards to gay marriage, yes, to do so is to promote the sin of homosexuality.
  • JaneinWNY
    LJRD, I don't understand the point of your question. If someone were threatening to jump off a bridge, why would intervention depend on pregnancy, stage of pregnancy, or even the gender of the person threatening to jump?

    Although, if your intervention took the form of talking her down, rather than grabbing her, then I suppose you might use the baby as a reason not to jump. Is that what you meant?

    Jane
  • Back in the day, however, Christians were completely shut out of the power structure. That's not the case today, so we need to figure out what to do with the influence we have.
  • letjusticerolldown
    Sometimes your critics are your best critics brother. Truth delivered with a hammer is a lie.

    When persons say the language is over the top they do not counter your conclusions nor assertions. They are speaking about your language.

    Your language is a quite separate issue from the practice of abortion; and too is to be brought under the Lordship of Jesus.
  • letjusticerolldown
    "No one, and I do mean no one, has the right to tell any woman what to do with her body, or when."

    If a pregnant woman at 36 weeks stood on a bridge over the river threatening to jump--would you intervene to save the child?
blog comments powered by Disqus
click here for comments tech support
advertise here
  • MOST VIEWED
  • MOST COMMENTED
  • MOST RECENT
advertise here
advertise here
advertise here
advertise here


HOME | SUBSCRIBE | DONATE | TAKE ACTION | MAGAZINE  
SOJOMAIL | BLOGS | MEDIA | EVENTS | RESOURCES | ABOUT US  
Sojourners | 3333 14th Street NW, Suite 200 | Washington, DC 20010  
Phone 202.328.8842 | Fax 202.328.8757 | sojourners@sojo.net  
Unless otherwise noted, all material © Sojourners 2008