Compassionate Conservatives Looking to Rebrand and Expand Their Mission

By responding to Christ's call "to care for the least of these", the Convoy of Hope is worthy of our prayers, our volunteer efforts, and our financial support.

I think the headline on this piece may be confusing. Donaldson refers to his church as "conservative", but from this I can't tell whether he means politically conservative or theologically conservative. His comments on Barack Obama certainly don't sound conservative. (And by that I don't mean to say that he isn't nasty enough about Obama -- but the conservative case for Obama isn't based on the budget and his past as a "community organizer".)

By contrast, "compassionate conservative" has almost always been a political term. Please understand, I'm not criticizing Donaldson (who probably didn't have any input on the title anyway) but he doesn't strike me as a compassionate conservative.

I think this phrase that Donaldson used should be a clue: "During [Obama's] campaign he said that change comes not from the top down but from the bottom up. Few are closer to the people than our churches, and we are grateful for the welcome mat that has been thrown out for even evangelical churches." That's an ideologically conservative sentiment if there ever was one.

Actually, I get quite confused by church labels i.e. "conservative" and "liberal." I belong to the Episcopal Church and in so many ways, we are about as "conservative" and "traditional" as can be. We read the Nicene Creed every week, we have Confession, we read from the Old Testament, the Psalms, the Epistles and finally the Gospels. We have a very specific liturgy that we use each week. We don't use jazz or rock-n-roll for our church music; we use a church organ and sing traditional hymns from our hymnal.

And yet, the Episcopal Church has been described by many as being "radical" and "liberal" and "progressive" and "not traditional." We've been told that we are "not truly Christian," and that we "don't believe in the Bible" (even though Scripture is an integral part of each service).

Perhaps is it because we practice social justice, emphasize our inclusiveness for ALL of God's people. Is that what makes us "radical" and "not Bible-believing traditional" or "conservative?"

Episcopals often are baffled by the labels thrown about because, my observation is, they are often consumed with doing God's work instead of figuring out how to make life work (e.g. finding out what system is best-I'm guilty of that myself). I've often heard Bishop N.T. Wright say that some debates going on in Evangelicalism seem puzzling, with his response normally being, "What's all the fuss about?" I like Anglicans a lot for this reason.

So are you saying that the liberal position is that change comes from the top down? Would this mean that the churches have little to contribute?

LV

That's what conservatives insinuate the liberal position to be, which is how and why they come against "big government." (Except that they themselves actually have practiced "top-down" authority whenever they got it.)

My concern about "compassionate conservatism" is that, by accepting federal money, churches and ministries who service the poor will forfeit their duty to speak truth to power. My own church, which does a lot of work in the inner city, wouldn't take those funds for that same reason.

"Donaldson refers to his church as "conservative", but from this I can't tell whether he means politically conservative or theologically conservative."

Does it matter? Is his message less credible because he allied himself with Jim Wallis is combating hunger? Should the Assemblies of God kick him out of their fellowship because he has joined with Wallis in a venture that cannot be described as liberal or conservative? I suspect that the those who are fed as a result of their combined efforts have little concern whether the food came from liberals or conservatives.

Well, the Episcopal diocese in my city split last year, with most of the churches aligning with a more "conservative" province in South America.

Well stated. We should be in the habit of asking people, what do you want to conserve?, what do you want to share? What direction are you moving? These would help us better understand if we can travel together on the journey. There often are several ways to reach a destination, you may take the highway, or the back-roads, the freeway or the historic river route, but when we go beyond theory to the practical, when I live in Western MN, I have to travel east to reach the Twin Cities. I worry, that some of the conservative political blend with evangelical doctrines will not reform easily. Indeed a course correction might not meet the goal, but real repentance is needed. Turn around, you're goin the wrong way. This is more than a course correction.

Your comments however, give me hope that there are very positive changes happening. Keep talking and sharing that message.

I'll take that as a "no" to both questions, which means that Donaldson's position on top-down versus bottom-up change is not exclusively a conservative one.

I also see that your concern about "compassionate conservatism" and its implications for participating churches is very similar to those expressed by a lot of conservatives (myself among them) though perhaps we would not have used those exact words.

I remain unconvinced that Donaldson is conservative on political issues. But on the plus side, we seem to have stumbled across some common ground.

LV

I'm willing to chime in about the "conservativeness" of the Assemblies of God.

I grew up in a church that was loosely affiliated wit the AG, and I've known a lot of AG congregants and church leaders over the years.

They are a Pentecostal church, as many of you know I'm sure, and they are very conservative theologically. Because of their concern for "conserving" Jesus' teaching (or at least their understanding of them), there is an inherent concern for ministering to the poor -- or at least that's in their official doctrine. I am familiar with their teaching, and I can attest that this teaching is valued. I cannot attest as to how this is lived out in churches across the country.

They also tend to be very "conservative" politically, in that they tend to align with Republicans. Like many Evangelicals who do, this alignment is more about abortion than anything else -- even financial matters and the oppression and/or neglect of the poor.

If you recall, Sarah Palin has AG roots, and I think it's fair to say she embodies the political perspective of many AG churches -- though certainly not all of them.

I don't think it's fair to characterize the entire denomination that way, so I'll qualify my earlier statements by saying so, but it certainly is the trend in the AG to be aligned with Republicans.

Does it matter? In some ways yes and in other ways no. I never argued that Donaldson's own message wasn't credible. And kicking him out of the Assemblies of God was entirely your spin -- I never came close to suggesting such a thing.

The problem is that Sojo is presenting Donaldson as a "Compassionate Conservative" and this is a source of confusion. "Compassionate Conservatism" was the name given to a specific set of programs established by the Bush administration. But I see little here to indicate that Donaldson was a supporter of that initiative, or that he is a conservative politically.

It isn't my intention to accuse anyone of anything. Bush's "Compassionate Conservatism" was the subject of a lot of debates among conservatives themselves, and I don't necessarily expect Sojo to be on top of all the intramural arguments that go on among those of us on the right. I just wanted to get it on the record that this whole realm is more complicated than Sojo is letting on, and that Donaldson is not necessarily a conservative spokesman. That doesn't make him a bad guy.

LV

I was saying only that conservatives were publicly anti-government because they didn't want anyone else making decisions and taking the money they believed was rightfully "theirs" to help those in need.

As for my concern about "compassionate conservatism," it was actually more sinister than is obvious. First, black pastors of inner-city churches were often the most vocal opponents of conservative Republicanism, which was a major embarrassment to ideologically conservative Christians. See, the original goal of "compassionate conservatism" was to get people in the 'hood "saved" and discipled so that we wouldn't have to worry about them anymore and the money was designed, really, to get those pastors on their side. (This was evidenced by the fact that Marvin Olasky, the former Bush adviser who came up with it in the first place; and Jerry Falwell opposed the bill that Bush actually signed because they wanted only churches -- no mosques or secular agencies -- to get that cash.) The problem was that it deliberately ignored the pervasive poverty, often perpetrated by policies they support, that exists there and which has a hand in perpetrating the dysfunction.

I take Donaldson at his word that he's politically conservative; that doesn't mean, however, that he's inflexible and unwilling to work with people from across the aisle. Indeed, I think that was his point -- remember, his group is part of the Assemblies of God, which certainly isn't ideologically liberal.

I think conservatism has a lot of different meanings in a lot of different contexts, and sometimes honest people get those contexts confused. I think there are people who are conservative on theological issues but progressive on politics, and Donaldson's article looks like something out of that line. And that's okay.

If Donaldson wants to chime in himself I'd be interested in hearing what he has to say. Otherwise we've gotten to the point where there isn't much to be added without the danger of putting words in his mouth. I've made my caveat. You can have the last word on this thread.

LV

I don't understand why we just can't take Donaldson at his word -- if he says he's a conservative we should just accept it and leave it at that. Part of the problem I've always had with conservatism is just what you brought up -- in that view everything has to be so well-defined that it almost necessarily leads to conflict due to thinking "who is and who isn't." (I'm Reformed by theological persuasion, and that's our biggest problem -- we focus so much on the minors that some of the majors get completely lost. Some people have even doubted that I am Reformed.)

"That doesn't make him a bad guy."

I'm sure that Mr. Donaldson will be greatly relieved by your endorsement.

But I'm really curious. What is there about his original post that would cause you to doubt his conservative credentials? Is the sole reason for his failing the conservative mantra test the fact that he has joined with Wallis in a project that feed the poor?

Elsewhere on this site there are posts that describe what the Assemblies of God fellowship believes. They are described as a theologically and politically conservative group, and I saw no evidence in Donaldson's post that he has rejected any of the A/G core beliefs. In the absence of any concrete evidence that Donaldson has been tainted by liberalism, I'm left with the impression that merely joining in this project to feed the poor has damned him in your eyes.

Oh, and Sojo doesn't have "to be on top of all the intramural arguments" of the right. Sojo didn't write the post; Donaldson did.

"I'm sure that Mr. Donaldson will be greatly relieved by your endorsement."

Okay, well, now that that's settled...

"But I'm really curious. What is there about his original post that would cause you to doubt his conservative credentials? Is the sole reason for his failing the conservative mantra test the fact that he has joined with Wallis in a project that feed the poor?"

Uh, no. If you'll scroll up to my back and forth with Blue Deacon, you'll see that what jumped out at me was his very blase attitude towards Obama's budget and his citing Barack Obama's work as a community organizer. Even among those conservatives who like Obama (such as David Brooks) the budget is a source of alarm and the value of his "community organizer" work is dubious.

Conservatives caring for the poor is hardly novel. Bush spent millions of dollars (quite effectively I might add) on AIDS relief in Africa. Hardly anyone on the right griped about that, most of us considered it praiseworthy.

And much as I disagree with Jim Wallis, I don't think he'st the Antichrist (no doubt he'll be greatly relieved to hear that too) and I think it's entirely possible for people to work with him on different things and not get the ideological equivalent of cooties.

"I saw no evidence in Donaldson's post that he has rejected any of the A/G core beliefs."

Neither did I.

"Oh, and Sojo doesn't have "to be on top of all the intramural arguments" of the right."

I think that's what I said. We are agreeing furiously.

LV

"...you'll see that what jumped out at me was his very blase attitude towards Obama's budget and his citing Barack Obama's work as a community organizer."

Donaldson's "blase attitude" may have "jumped out" at you, but it certainly is not obvious by actually reading the text of his comments. Here's the portion where he refers to Obama:

"I have also been asked to comment on this current administration. We have been encouraged by what we are hearing from President Obama. During his campaign he said that change comes not from the top down but from the bottom up. Few are closer to the people than our churches, and we are grateful for the welcome mat that has been thrown out for even evangelical churches. We are hopeful that the budget will reflect that sentiment because as he knows as a community organizer, when the church is the same zip code as those in need, we can leverage private resources with public ones in order to provide a continuum of care."

Now, this concept of local churches partnering with the government did not originate with President Obama. It was conceived by Senator Rick Santorum and George W. Bush and I have seen no evidence of them losing their conservative credentials.

Finally, I don't understand how Donaldson's reference to Obama as a "community organizer" implies either approval or disapproval of his policies. (Palin also used the term.)

There is absolutely nothing in the post by Donaldson that indicates that he agrees with Obama on homosexuality, same-sex marriage, abortion, the war in Iraq, defense spending, deficit spending, taxes, fiscal policies, race relations, foreign policy, or the whole litany of issues that separate conservatives and liberals. It appears that Donaldson's single unpardonable sin is his alliance with Wallis to feed the poor. And you resent that?

In truth, Sojo has more integrity than any of its conservative "brethren," if for no other reason than it doesn't spend its time raising money and outrage against the "other." As I've often said on this blog, take away the media coverage and it will keep on doing what it's been doing for nearly 40 years because it just wants to be faithful. (And sometimes that means calling a spade a spade even if that offends people.) That said, it has always been independent from the Democratic Party; if that weren't the case you would have seen party hacks regularly here. Thus, the charge of partisanship is overblown.

And as another poster pointed out, the AG already leans Republican ideologically, so what's the point?

I wonder if they believe that a loving partner should desert his/her partner and leave him/her behind and cast him/her out -- so to find a partner of the "correct" gender, with the correct body parts. This is not any part of Christ's Word.

Well -- in fact, it is. The reason why He never said anything about it during His earthly life was because He generally was addressing the Jewish people, who generally were not participating in homosexual behavior (which was, of course, forbidden in Jewish law); Paul, by contrast, often dealt with Gentiles who were.

And in fact, same-gender marriage is only a modern Western construct precisely because, in our culture, it's based on attraction; marriage elsewhere exists for the preservation of the "tribe," which in many cases partners are chosen by family, usually parents.

So you truly believe that a man or a woman should desert a loving relationship of (let's say) 30 years because the partner isn't of a different gender?

Whatever happened to "til death do we part?" Is this true only in your mind if the people have the "correct" body parts and are of the "correct" gender? Are you saying that fidelity within a long-term relationship is sinful if the partner isn't of the "correct" gender?

I remember the days when people were told that they were supposed to desert their long-term loving partners and were not allowed to marry them because they were of the "wrong" race.

You also wrote: "marriage elsewhere exists for the preservation of the 'tribe,' which in many cases partners are chosen by family, usually parents."

Is marriage only for reproduction? What about couples who cannot reproduce? Is it sinful for them to express their love for each other in an intimate way?

Once more it seems that many of the so-called "conservatives" are more concerned with sex, gender, and who possesses which body-parts than they are with such issues as helping the poor or fighting social injustice.

Read what I said before. Marriage in Western society is often based on
nothing but attraction, but that was never the intent -- it was always one
man, one woman. Period. That has nothing at all to do with "love."

As for marrying someone of a different race, that doesn't compare. Moses'
second wife was such and that caused some problems for many Israelites;
however, it never invalidated the marriage.

Okay. Thanks. I got carried away with the hyperbole.

But I don't think that we have resolved the central issue here: Can a man who comes from a theologically conservative church (a church which includes in its Statement of Fundamental Truths that the Scriptures are a revelation of God to man, the infallible, authoritative rule of faith and conduct and a church whose public staements on social issues are decidedly conservative) - can that same man join forces with a man who is not conservative without having his conservative credentials challenged?

Throughout this land that God has abundantly blessed, liberals and conservatives daily join forces. The work side-by-side in PTA, Little League, storm devastated areas, cancer fund drives, and the battle-fields of Iraq - all without compromising their beliefs. So why have we singled out this one area in which two people with vastly different backgrounds and political beliefs have joined forces for a common cause? How has Mr. Donaldson sullied his conservative credentials by accepting the help of Sojo and Jim Wallis? It's really easy to dismiss them as "lacking integrity", but it was the Samaritan who stopped to render assistance. If just a cup of water He places within our hand; then just a cup of water is all that He demands. The hungry and thirsty cannot distinguish its source.