advertisement
RSS
More Feeds












God's Politics

Conservative Progressives?

by Brian McLaren 11-16-2009

It’s been said that conservatives are people who honor the tombs of dead progressives. If  that’s true, then within the Democratic movement, even with its progressive reputation, there could be a wing of conservative progressives, those who remember the good old days and the great leaders who then presided.

What would a conservative wing of the progressive party stand for? First, I think, they would be staunchly secular, deeply suspicious of progressive Evangelicals and Catholics being “out of the closet” about their faith in party circles.  Second, they would be nervous about progressive religious Democrats who do not favor criminalizing abortion but are deeply committed to abortion reduction. Third, they would be concerned if these Evangelical and Catholic Democrats wanted the same kinds of accountability for big government that they want for big business.

Most progressive Evangelicals, it turns out, are the sons and daughters of religiously righteous conservative Republicans, so they have already learned how to break free from conservative strangle-holds. Wouldn’t it be ironic if they become the ones to help shift the center of gravity in the Democratic Party — not regressively, but in a freshly progressive direction?

This is the time, I believe, for Christians and non-Christians in both parties to become truly progressive — to move on from old and tired fights and litmus tests that polarize, paralyze, and never lead anywhere productive. We need to realize this inconvenient but urgently needed truth: it’s not the 1980s anymore. If we keep asking the same old poorly framed or unproductive questions — What is your position on abortion? What’s your position on gay marriage? Are you religious or secular? Are you for or against big government?– whatever our answers are, we remain stuck in a past moment and can’t get out of it. We don’t just need new answers to the same old questions; we need to raise new questions entirely, and in that way, change the conversation in both parties in a truly progressive way.

To regress in this way to the old battle lines of the 1980s is, in my view, a bad and sad idea. Democrats and Republicans alike need to progress to a new list of critical issues, beginning with three emergencies I identified in my book Everything Must Change:

  1. The Crisis of the Planet: How can we reorient our economy around sustainability and regeneration rather than consumption and environmental degradation?
  2. The Crisis of Poverty: How can we address the growing economic gap between a powerful rich minority and the marginalized poor majority of our world’s people, especially when rich corporate elites have found ways to co-opt democracy and control political agendas here and around the world?
  3. The Crisis of Peace: How can we move beyond the morally bankrupt and economically bankrupting endless wars of terrorism and counter-terrorism to pursue peace through justice and reconciliation in a world armed with too many and too-dangerous weapons?

Christians have every reason to address these three issues with faith-based energy and passion, whatever their party. I hope that Democrats will welcome a shift in focus to a new kind of question, and that progressive Evangelicals (and Catholics) will aid in that process.

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

Categories: Faith and Politics
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)

  • MacArthur4
    I have heard people speak about people of color is such ways that demean their humanity because of their beliefs based on their supposedly expectations of political beliefs . Most people in our culture find that offensive .

    Take the politics out of this , does not anyone else find the inappropriateness of this essay from a Christian perspective. From a secual perspective . Just from what our Moms and Dads taught us perspective.
    I would think all of us would ?

    Millstones come to mind.

    God Loves you Brian. He does!
  • Where did he ever bring color into this? This article is about reconciliation and you're bringing politics back into it. Granted, he only addresses progressives - but this is a progressive site.
  • MacArthur4
    . This is reconciliation ? Color was brought into because he is stereotyping people of Faith , and if you can not see the wrong in that , which I guess you were not able to , I thought perhaps if I suggested used another way people wrongly judge people it would help.

    You found the following reconciliatory ? Interesting.


    "What would a conservative wing of the progressive party stand for? First, I think, they would be staunchly secular, deeply suspicious of progressive Evangelicals and Catholics being “out of the closet” about their faith in party circles. Second, they would be nervous about progressive religious Democrats who do not favor criminalizing abortion but are deeply committed to abortion reduction. Third, they would be concerned if these Evangelical and Catholic Democrats wanted the same kinds of accountability for big government that they want for big business."
  • I'm hard-line anti-PC, i.e. I don't care about stereotypes. When he disrespects you personally, I'll care; until then, prove his stereotype wrong.
  • MacArthur4
    until then, prove his stereotype wrong.


    I find that quite strange .

    All homosexuals try to molest children . How often has stereotypes like that been promoted , and the damage and hurt that came to homosexuals because of it . Because homosexuals were not around to prove the steretypes wrong from your perspective speading them is OK ?

    I am somewhat the opposite , personal insult is about me , I can take it ... stereotypes in this case are about people, Gods people, that are denigrated that never even gotten the chance to make it personal. They are already presumed to have a negative perjoritive hung around their neck, Thus your attempting to limit the outreach of the church in some cases.
  • If personal disrespect results from a stereotype, go after both with the same ferocity. I don't think this particular stereotype does that; after all, he said "I think..." I don't think stereotypes are evil just because they're stereotypes, although like anything they can be misused.
  • I'm sorry. I really want to understand what you're saying, and I don't. Why is the essay inappropriate from a Christian perspective? He's talking about creation care, economic justice, and peace. I believe Jesus was or would have been solidly on McLaren's side of all three of those issues.

    There are, in fact, Christian Conservatives who do, in fact, hold the views he discusses. He's not demonizing or attacking them, just stating disagreement and saying what he favors. I would understand a comment expressing disagreement, but I see no example whatsoever of the author demeaning anybody.
  • pawheel
    I have tried many times to engage
    right/conservatives in discussion about
    political topics of the day. Maybe it's them, or
    maybe it's me, but it rarely goes well.
    Once I see that it isn't going to go well I
    sometimes mention that I am a Green
    Party member and that often pretty much
    ends any hope of good give and take
    dialogue. It's still fun though.
  • Lol. Well, I have an empty board that I'm working to populate with conservatives who are willing to talk. You can go ahead and join, but it's just me and maybe two others so far. See my Disqus profile for the address. (I know the policy regarding liberals is strict; hopefully it can be changed once the board's personality is established.)
  • pawheel
    I forgot to add that Brian's point that the conversation needs to change; the old arguements are no longer helpful (if they ever were), is an excellent point. The 3 points he brings up are right on the money from my view, but from a conservative point of view they may be seen as inaccurate right from the start: there is still belief that Global warming is a hoax; some I talk to don't think of the economic imbalance as a problem; and see the "endless wars of Terrorism" as necessary. That thinking is hard to change. Too many people on BOTH sides have difficulty listening, let alone considering that they might be wrong
  • I'm not convinced of climate change, but I'll work with libs to find conservative solutions that will satisfy them. As for terrorism, I'm not totally sure. Bush's security measures were/are wrong, and invading Iraq was wrong. Invading Afghanistan was right, but maybe we're now fighting wrong over there.

    But yes, many conservatives are horrible listeners. They have trouble even listening to my suggestions that we should listen to you.
  • I'm not sure whether I'm a conservative progressive or a progressive conservative, but the gist of this article is something I totally agree with.

    1. Libertarians suggest altering land rights so land is (at least partly) a public resource. They argue that tort claims should be raised by members of the community who suffer from pollution - in a stream, for instance.

    2. Thomas Jefferson had an objective of preserving the middle class too, but he was somewhere between conservative and libertarian. I'm not sure whether welfare is necessary now that we aren't stealing land, but one thing that hurts this cause is that the rich elite get most of the political offices. To fix this, we can reform campaign finance and experiment on the state level with other methods of election.

    3. I think we'll probably have less wars when we get ordinary folks in office per #2.

    And to solve the root of these problems - that is, the polarized political atmosphere - we need to start talking with each other more. Right now we have discussion that's civil, but the ideology divide is like the language one. When you cross it, everything is foreign to you and you're foreign to everything. We need liberals who understand conservatism and conservatives who understand liberalism. Then we need to refine both to be consistent and put the best of each side in the other.

    Note to liberals: Conservatives will have a really hard time listening as long as you attack us for paying attention to the pundits you love to hate. So far I have received satisfactory explanations for most of your pet peeves. The main thing that you need to grasp, I think, is that a lot of those pundits are very sarcastic and dry. Don't take everything they say as something they're saying seriously. When you find something this might apply to, go ask a conservative community before giving the pundit a black mark.
  • It's ironic that in light of his efforts to move beyond "old and tired fights and litmus tests that polarize, paralyze, and never lead anywhere," Brian himself has become a polarizing politico-religious figure.

    Perhaps this has something to do with the contrast between Brian's encouragement of "faith-based energy and passion" when it comes to addressing certain highly complex public policy issues on one hand (climate change, war, poverty) and his simultaneous dismissal of those same energies and passions when the discussion concerns other highly complex public policy issues (abortion, gay marriage, the size of government).

    I still consider myself a progressive evangelical with a left-of-center political viewpoint, but Brian does not speak for me anymore. He is adding to the polarization, not alleviating it.
  • MacArthur4
    but Brian does not speak for me anymore


    Thank you for takoig the time to say that . it actually gives me some hope . Listening to Christian radio you sometimes hear shows that really pummel liberal viewpoints beinging in some nasty stereotyping , I hope not everyone agrees with this , but realize many hear it and it effects them .

    I see the political ideaology mixed in with the Lord. Also the bunker dowm mentality that puts people of Faith always expecting the worse from people . I figure there has to be people on the liberal politcal scope who feel the same way I do about the rhetoric they hear that mirrors the religious right but does it from a religious left perspective. . God bless you my man . That was refreshing.
  • I think he's trying to alleviate the polarization, and the discussions he's trying to start should be engaged in. One thing I wonder is... Would stereotypes be so polarizing if no one complained about them, except when undesirable social effects resulted?
  • letjusticerolldown
    I think it is polarizing because I believe McLaren, Wallis, and a contingent of others have found a new kind of wedge voice. To gain an amplified political-religious voice in the broader media and publishing world one must have a marketable message. It must have legs. They have found a voice of creative, middle-ground, "Not X", and "Not Y", and not religious right, and not secular left--but to make the voice distinctive they have to pit themselves against those other voices.

    They criticize parties on all sides who do not seek the common good--but in the process pit themselves against all sides. Frankly, I don't think progressives care one whit more about the three issues he identifies than my dyed-in-the-wool conservative Republican parents (now deceased). But to say he was one and the same as my parents--would be to say progressivism is not--and his voice is not distinctive.
  • So they make controversial statements in order to sell their opinions more easily, and because they make money from these controversial statements you feel the need to make them controversial?
  • I know a little about the financial state of Sojourners.... if you think they are in it for the money, you are sorely mistaken.
  • OK, replace money with attention... Same message.
  • letjusticerolldown
    In 1980 Jerry Falwell discovered a 'moral majority.' This moral majority existed before 1979. But he identified and labeled it and the media bought it as a great story--elevating him (and others) to something of a kingpin status. The Moral Majority is gone. Except all the people that were part -- are pretty much still around. They were here before 1980, during the 80's, and will be here tomorrow.

    There was a great mistake in thinking that because media and politicians recognized this new-found block of faith-voters--that leaders could step forth and exercise political power. That the church had found a new way to manifest Gods ways.

    And Evangelicals quickly became the conservative, Republican, Right voting block with spokespersons we obediently followed.

    Oh, never mind the truth. That the Evangelical vote was a divided vote in the 70's, 80's, 90's, 00's.

    You want to jump on board and do this same thing again?
blog comments powered by Disqus
click here for comments tech support
advertisement
  • MOST VIEWED
  • MOST COMMENTED
  • MOST RECENT
advertisement
advertisement
advertisement
advertisement
advertisement


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