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)

  • What about Christians being a prophetic voice to all those in politics, instead of worrying about which ideological label to carry?
  • irish_annie
    mclaren's jabs are indeed subtle, but they're there. the message is "progressive: good; every other thought: bad". he describes "them" as "deeply suspicious", "nervous", having a "strangle-hold", asking the "same old questions", etc. one would have to be blinded by sharing his common ideology not to see it... selah.
  • irish_annie
    yes. brian, your books brought new insights... i loved them all. but as a clairvoyant, assuming to know the hearts and minds of others... well, don't quit your day job my brother ;)
  • beckycarr
    McLaren's 3 priorities address issues that affect far more people far more profoundly than abortion and gay marriage. These are more personal moral issues. McLaren's priorities address systemic societal issues and policies that have far-reaching implications for everyone on the planet. Where should we focus our finite energies? I vote for McLaren's 3 priorities.
  • Stein
    Consider the raw weight (quantity) of Bible text devoted to the topics of climate change (i.e. creation care), war, and poverty as compared to the weight of text devoted to discussing abortion, gay marriage, and the size of government.

    There are a few texts discussing each of the latter topics, but orders-of-magnitude more texts discussing the first set.
  • I think we were discussing whether McLaren's writing is something new or more of the "old and tired fights" he criticizes.

    That depends on his reason for criticizing them. I don't read him much, but if he joins the PC crowd in railing against others for his brand of stereotypes then obviously that's hypocritical.

    You seemed to say--"it's not more of the same if no one complains about it"

    No, I just see the controversy itself as the problem rather than the controversial statements. So complaining about the type of statements that always causes unnecessary controversy is more of the same. If no one complained the problem would be solved.

    The Moral Majority is a different animal. They didn't rely on getting the other side angry AFAIK; they focused on getting votes from people who would give them regardless of controversy.
  • letjusticerolldown
    I think we were discussing whether McLaren's writing is something new or more of the "old and tired fights" he criticizes.
    Common Loon basically said--"more of the same"
    You seemed to say--"it's not more of the same if no one complains about it"
    I argued it does polarize because not only is the message positioned "in opposition" but if it does not oppose there is no message.
    You seemed to come back and again say that if I didn't complain about it there is no problem.
    So I came back to what I believe an analogy of another set of faith leaders who figured out a way to package a political message that amplified their voice (while polarizing)--and ask you consider if you wish to go down that path again.

    That's my take.
  • pawheel
    Personally, I think the problem is that the concensus on global warming exists more outside of the US. I keep reading that people in some of the poorer nations are the ones who are already paying the price so far. Does New York have to flood for people to believe it? The polar ice caps will reportedly be melted in the warmer months for the first time in recorded history.
    I got to meet someone who was visiting from Germany last week. He has been part of a German/Afghanistan committee to provide assistance to Afghanistan for 20 years. His question was "Why doen't the United States believe in global warming?"
  • OK, replace money with attention... Same message.
  • You completely confused me. You or I missed the other's point somewhere.
  • 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?
  • I know a little about the financial state of Sojourners.... if you think they are in it for the money, you are sorely mistaken.
  • 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?
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Oh, yes it has. There is tons of science behind it, and there is a consensus. Giving credence to climate change deniers is like giving equal time to flat-earthers at a geophysics conference. You make it sound like a hoax that Al Gore made up. It's not.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • justin1984
    Maybe if christians disengaged from partisan politics on both sides, we'd be headed in the correct direction.

    I'd love to see many more Shane Claibornes, Stanley Hauerwases, John Howard Yoders, and Greg Boyds than Brian McLaren. I jumped off the Sojourners and McLaren boat when they became Pat Robertson for the Democrats.

    Christianity is supposed to be a countercultural witness against the state. We live out our politic to show the world that the way of Jesus is the better way. We speak out against injustices committed by the state and corporate giants. But why must there even be both right and left amongst us? Because we continue to "lord it over each other, like the Gentiles". I pray that Christ's words come true that it is "not so among you".
  • 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?
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