Part Three: About the Future

How do Liberals/Progressives and Conservatives en-vision the future? Conservatives often don’t have a good attitude toward this life, which might be referred to as a “veil of tears”, or as “a sorrow which will go away when Jesus comes again”. For many of us Liberals and Progressives, we like it here. This doesn’t mean that we don’t look forward to Eternal Life, or that we don’t see problems and sin inherent in life, but we believe that we can create a better earth through creative thinking and through compassionate and just and merciful policies. We don’t accept the inevitability of war simply because it’s difficult to envision the possibility of peace. We don’t accept the inevitability of inequality because equality seems to be a pipe dream. We are willing to try to create something that has never been before – and to go through the difficult process of figuring it out, experimenting, making mistakes, and re-figuring.  We believe that there can be far more justice and mercy on earth.

This means that we also believe that Humankind contains vast amounts of Goodness. The Conservatives often focuses on the Sinfulness of Humankind and the Hope in the future when it will all be gone and we will reach perfection.

Yet, we too see the problems within our world. What is sometimes called Moral Relativism by Conservatives comes about because Liberals don’t always see life quite so neatly. Liberals don’t tend to believe that they know all the answers, and that everything the Bible says is directly relevant to our age without some thinking behind it. We are more apt to consider, to think through and reflect on an idea, and see the moral ambiguity. Sometimes we can get so deeply involved in Situational Ethics that we can lose our moral compass. Sometimes Conservatives can get so involved in Absolutes, so they cause more harm than good. For instance, Conservatives take an absolute stand against abortion – no wiggle room at all. But if their stand resulted in laws that prohibit abortion, this could cause more abortions, rather than fewer, with more deaths to women as well as to the fetus. The harm might outweigh the good. This would be considered a situation where there’s more harm than good, so another solution needs to be envisioned. Progressive/Liberals  want abortion to be safe, legal, and rare.

Liberals, like Conservatives, can go off the deep end, and have Wobbly Ethics, to the extent that anything goes and there might not be a moral parameter. But Conservatives can have Hard Ethics, with little compassion for anyone in difficult circumstances. Yes, they’re more apt to be very clear, and often more sure of themselves that they’re right, whereas liberals are more apt to see ambiguity in many moral decisions. Liberals are more apt to say it’s not enough to be Right. One also has to be Effective.

The social work of Liberals and Progressive/Liberals, many times done in the name of their religion, has led to abolition of slavery, women’s rights, prison reform, and more work in the field of peace-making. However, some of these areas have also been addressed by Evangelicals historically, and are now being addressed more by Evangelicals, although many Conservatives think that things can be better for everyone if they only accepted Christ. However, there is plenty of evidence that Born Again Christians in government do not guarantee a better society, (remember George W. and Tom DeLay and…!!!) and that belief, in itself, doesn’t solve many systemic political and social problems.

Often the jump from individual Faith to Social Action is less clear for Conservatives, but not always.  Often personal faith and a personal relationship with God is less clear for Liberals, but not always.

No matter what we do, or how hard we try, we are not going to be the same. Yet, just when we think we’ve put someone so carefully in a box, they keep jumping out of our categories. So everything in this article may be true, somewhat, for some people. Is that a problem?

Part Two

Conservative and Progressive/Liberal Christians not only have a different approach to issues, they also have a different emphasis on the Christ Figure. Christ represented many different ideas and many different functions. Although most Christians would agree with all of these representations, different Christians emphasize different aspects. Conservatives tend to see Christ as the Sacrificial Lamb. Their image of Christ as a sacrificial lamb means they see Christ as the one who atones for their sins. They then add the Savior image to this. In many cases, this is seen as individual salvation, rather than social or global.

If a Progressive or Liberal Christian identifies with this image, they will often re-focus it emphasizing the Suffering Christ and the Sacrificial Christ. If Christ will sacrifice for us, then we should sacrifice for others. This might mean, for many, that all the broohaha about how terrible it is for us to pay higher taxes doesn’t seem to be as much of a problem for Liberals and Progressives because some sacrifice on our parts (especially any of us who are middle-class, upper middle-class or upper class) means a great deal to those who don’t have enough food on the table, don’t have clean water to drink, don’t have a job and have trouble getting one, and have suffered discrimination. We are more apt to take this idea of the Liberating Christ into society, and find that our cozy lifestyle in the richest country of the world leads us to become more responsible to alleviate some of the great suffering in the world.

The Atonement, which Conservatives are more apt to speak about, (and it’s an important topic for all of us) is a concept more apt to be about the substitution of Jesus Christ for our individual sins, whereas Liberals/Progressives might think of it as At-One-Ment, to become At One with the love, compassion, care, mercy, and justice of the Christ Figure – to allow the Christ Spirit to work through us and move us into working for a better society. In fact, we believe that the Spirit that works within us moves us naturally into society. We then move to the Resurrected Christ who gives Hope and possibilities for our world.

The Liberals/Progessives are more apt to also see Christ as the Liberator with a continuing revelation for our society as well as for our individual lives. Conservatives rarely use this term, since this comes from the more liberal theology of Liberation Theology, but when they do, they are more apt to see this on an individual basis. Christ liberates us from our individual Sins, giving us Eternal Salvation. Since they have this emphasis on the personal and individual, they choose the issues of abortion and homosexuality as the “make-or-break” issues when voting, and see them as more important than the social issues about AIDS, disaster relief, health care for children, job training for the unemployed, decent housing, and the environment. I often hear Conservatives talk about the immoral behavior that brought this onto those who are suffering, rather than a deeper understanding of why these problems exist and what can be done to help.

We find plenty of evidence of this social call in many Bible verses from both the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament. Isaiah 10 says, “Woe to those who enact unjust decrees, who compose oppressive legislation to deny justice to the weak and to cheat the humblest of my people of fair judgment, to make widows their prey and to rob the orphan.” And then he goes on to let the rulers of Assyria know what he thinks of their oppressive policies.

The Liberal/Progressive sees that much oppression occurs because of oppressive social structures (such as the tax breaks for the rich and for corporations, pension plans going broke because of bad corporate management, price gouging of gasoline that is allowed by the U.S. government, pollution that causes sickness because of unjust laws, money spent on war and not on infrastructure that leads to deaths, etc.) Progressive/Liberals think that things can be better for our society. They see that many who are individually oppressed are oppressed because of certain structures in society that keep them in their place. Conservatives want to change the individual, but often think the social structures are just fine. Progressives/Liberals often think too much of the social structures, and not enough about the individual. Might there be a balance?

Part One:

Not everyone has had first hand experience being a Conservative Christian and a Progressive Christian, and everything in between. However, at one time or another, I’ve been in each one of these camps. I grew up mainstream Lutheran, became a Born Again Christian, and a Fundamentalist and Evangelical for about two years, and was re-baptized as an adult in a lake in Arizona by a Southern Baptist preacher. I was very much influenced by Liberal Christianity in seminary, then became a Quaker, spent an afternoon being a Radical Christian, and am comfortable with a definition of myself as a Christian Progressive or a Christian Liberal, although don’t fit neatly into every category, which seems to be true for most people. (I’m aware that there are some differences between the Progressive and Liberal, but for the purposes of these articles, they don’t seem as relevant.

Are we really so different? I’ve reached the conclusion that Conservative Christians and Progressive/Liberal Christians truly think differently, although not always, and not on all issues.  I believe we focus and emphasize different ideas, and sometimes have different thinking processes. I don’t know if this has to do with our personalities, or how we respond to ambiguity, or whether we are rebelling against or accepting, the religion of our youth, or how wounded we were in childhood, or how curious we are, or what we’ve learned through our own study of theology and the Scriptures. Yet, although I no longer consider myself a conservative, there are many areas where we, as Christians who might consider ourselves Progressives or Liberals can learn from the Conservatives, if we’re willing, and the Conservatives, if they’re willing, could learn from us. Of course, willingness is all, and many from both sides are not willing.

It was the Fundamentalists who  taught me about a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, about the experience of prayer, about reading my Bible daily and having daily devotion and prayer time, about committing myself to Christ (as an Evangelical would say) and being committed to a spiritual life and putting God first (as other Christians might say about their own Born Again experiences.)  Christians vary in terms of their own spiritual disciplines. On the surface, one might expect that Progressive/Liberals have fewer daily devotions, but I’m not convinced about this. I expect that many Progressive/Liberals are reading spiritual literature, although perhaps not always with the same focus on the Bible as many Conservatives. And I’m sure that many Conservatives don’t have daily devotions and are doing no more than anyone else in terms of a daily spiritual practice.

Conservatives seem to emphasize belief more than action, whereas Progressive/Liberals don’t care as much about what someone else believes, as long as they don’t try to push their belief systems on others. They care more about the action that results from one’s beliefs, since they know belief doesn’t always translate into making them more caring, more compassionate, more loving, kinder, with more of the fruits of the Spirit.

Both care about transgressions, but Conservatives often put the focus on sexual transgressions, Progressive/Liberals on social transgressions – corruption, not caring for the poor, pollution of the environment.

I have found more hypocrisy and self-righteousness among Conservatives than among Progressive/Liberals. Since belief is so strong, they sometimes are not reflective and introspective, pointing their fingers at others rather than looking at their own behavior. They speak more about the Letter of the Law than about the Spirit of the Law. There is much more boxing in of ideas, as if everything has to have a clear boundary and a Scripture passage to back it up, even though their Scriptural choices are often very selective, as are everyone’s. As a result, their clear and absolute boundaries can make them judgmental of others which can cause deep psychological and spiritual wounds. I have spoken to so many wounded ex-Catholics, ex-Baptists, ex-Fundamentalists, but don’t recall speaking to a wounded Methodist or Lutheran or Presbyterian who feel freer to change churches if one doesn’t suit. So many wounded Christians simply leave the Church, since they don’t feel they have choices. It’s one way or no way. I find far less of this from Mainstream and more Liberal Churches, where we are encouraged to question, to struggle with figuring out our relationship with God, and where it’s just fine to change denominations, to experiment, to search. 

I’d be interested in reader’s perceptions of these differences. In “Part Two”, I’ll briefly explore different concepts of God and Christ and Humanity! 

We’ve probably heard more about values and the “values vote” in the last six years than in the last hundred. Sometimes Christians (yes, and I’m one of them!) act as if they’re the only people who have values. Yet, probably everyone reading this blog – whether atheist, Buddhist, Muslim, Christian, or any other ‘ism’, has certain values that they try to put into action. These values might have been formed through day to day experience that tells them how people want to be treated. Or through reading philosophy, ethics, religious and spiritual literature, and studying the lives of people they admire. They might have been formed by “what my Mama taught me!”   

Yet values often become inconsistent and even contradictory. Sometimes they’re held as philosophical ideas, but they aren’t practiced. Some think that values are for individual and social work, but not for politics. Somehow politics is supposed to be practiced in a neutral, value-less atmosphere that has more to do with loyalty than true values.   

Yet, if values aren’t practiced in the political arena, they are diminished and powerless. Of all places where values can make the difference, it’s the political world.   

One value that seems to be common to almost all religions is the Golden Rule – “Do unto others as you would like others to do unto you.” Although it may take some learning to become conscious and caring of The Other, most religions and philosophies ask us to go beyond ourselves, and to develop a larger and more universal consciousness. Many religions and philosophies recognize this as a process. It isn’t always natural to care about The Other. As children, we learn to become unselfish, but we don’t start out that way. As we grow up, many of us try to expand this consciousness. That seems to be part of maturity.   

What are some of the values that are practiced in politics? The Christian religion (and I believe other religions as well) ask us to care about the poor. The Bible talks almost endlessly about caring for “the poor and the needy, widows and orphans.” Liberation theology calls this an “option for the poor”. If we are to take our stand with one group, it is to be with the Poor, not the rich, the powerful, and the privileged. This is one reason I have so much trouble with George W.’s brand of Christianity – it favors the rich, over and over again. Raising the minimum wage is one way to care for the Poor. Pairing it with tax breaks for the rich, as the previous Republican Congress wanted to do, has no religious basis.   

Compassion, healing, caring for those who are sick and suffering is another value. Stem cell research addresses this issue. So does health care. Affordable prescription drugs. Putting our money where it can help those who are hurt, sick, and suffering, carries out this value.   

There is much talk of Family Values. But family values, for some, simply means reducing benefits for those without families (whether single, gay, single parents) or thinking of family values simply as making sure people have families, whether they want them or not (those against abortion) or thinking of values in only limited ways (the nuclear family). Yet family values involve health care for families, and certainly, above all, for children. Help for children who are in need – even if not citizens. Education. Job Training. Ways to help families function better, and care for each other.  

Values involve peace, not war. Our country, in fact, most countries, spend so much time sowing the seeds of war and so little time learning to be peace-makers and peace-keepers. So many say they follow the Prince of Peace or the Path of Peace, and yet truly seem to get great joy out of killing their enemies and creating an “us- against-them” mentality.   

I’d be interested in bloggers’ responses to how their values are formed, and what priorities they have. I’d like to see more values in government – and use our taxpayer’s money for legislation that is more compassionate, and more effective.

I just returned from a month in Asia, teaching in Singapore and Indonesia, and also spending a week with a charity in the Philippines which I’ve been involved with since the early 1990’s. (www.Wodeef.org) While there, a very needy member of the charity whose son was in jail, asked if I would give her 10,000 pesos (approximately $125) to pay off a government official who said that she could get her son out of jail. I told the woman that I don’t collude with corrupt people because they aren’t trustworthy, but I said I would ask an attorney to look into the matter (which I did), since it’s believed that the young man is being held illegally.  

This got me to thinking about our own government, and my views that this government is not trustworthy. True, it probably is not as corrupt as the Philippine government, but I started adding up the many promises that have been made and broken, and the corruption that has been exposed. I have wondered where the billions of dollars have gone, that were supposed to pay for rebuilding the infrastructure in Iraq (after we bombed so much of it), helping to rebuild Lebanon (after our bombs, used by Israel, destroyed so much of it), helping to rebuild New Orleans (after promises made that it would rise from the ashes – but 1 ½ years later, and billions of dollars misspent, it seems to be much the same), improving the educational system, (which now consists of lots of test, but teachers report little improvement in education), with promises to begin reducing our national debt (after various experts have said we are in such a big financial mess that it will take generations to get out of it.)  

Recently, President Bush promised that the government would help rebuild the areas destroyed by the recent tornado – although I see no reason to believe him about this, since he seems to have made little progress in New Orleans. He has also told us he has a new plan for Iraq, and government officials as well as a number of Republicans in Congress have told us that we need to give this new plan – of some more billions of dollars and thousands more soldiers – a chance.  

Since this particular blog usually comes from a spiritual perspective, I thought about how much is said in the Bible about trust and keeping promises and saying what you mean and meaning what you say. Much is said about wisdom, and discernment, and listening. I wondered – would I give money to someone who had misspent it in the past? Would I give more soldiers to someone who had not proven that he could be effective with the soldiers he had? Would I support programs that had been judged as ineffective, not sufficient, and not strategically wise by many advisers and by some of the best historians and diplomats in our country? Would I support someone who doesn’t listen to the opposite views, even when coming from many experts, as well as from commissions and study groups that used millions of dollars of taxpayer’s money, only to have a President refuse to listen to the commissions he appointed? Would I support the plans of someone who had proven, time and time again, that he couldn’t be trusted?  

I wondered why President Bush keeps making promises and keeps asking us to trust him when he seems so incapable of keeping his promises. Is he incompetent? Unwise? Too inexperienced about the complicated ways of the world? Does he have the wrong advisers around him? Does he idealize the world too much? Is he truly in a state of denial about the facts? Does he simply live on hope?

Although this seems like purely a political issue, perhaps it’s a moral one as well.

I am eagerly awaiting leadership that is effective and wise. I don’t know if we’ll get it in the next election, but I do know we haven’t gotten it in the last 6 years. 

About two years ago, I attended a Bible study whose participants were very wealthy women living in a gated community with million-dollar homes. The women obviously had all the money they wanted to create their coordinated wardrobe where the collar of their sweater matched their shoes, and the belt matched the purse, and the pants were color-coordinated with their sweaters.  

Although I made no judgment about this at first, as the Study went on, I realized that these women had a spiritual problem – they were addicted to shopping. Several women mentioned that they loved to shop, and bought anything that caught their fancy.  They justified their spending of money by saying it helped the economy and they had the money, but I noticed spiritual un-ease about this problem – as if they weren’t sure if this were really a problem, or not. The Bible study leader was following a study guide and was impatient that there had been some disruption, and said they needed to get through the questions in the booklet, so the matter was dropped. 

I thought about this group of women, and believed there was a reason for their dis-ease. I also began to think about how money has the potential to prosper and oppress, to keep others in poverty and also to do good.  

Last year, I went to see the film, Blood Diamond, which shows the relationship of the diamond trade in developing countries, to the structures that support violence, war, as well as the kidnapping, training, and abuse of child soldiers. The film mentioned that scarce resources, many used by First World countries, can easily lead to abuse, poverty, and injustice – resources such as oil, rubber, gold, and diamonds. The money we spend leaves us culpable for the unseen damage it can do.  

If we follow the money, we can begin to see how many of our purchases, even those of necessity, damages others. Although I can’t see any way that we can be pure users of money, we can try to be conscious of where our money goes. I’d rather my money went to alternative, non-polluting energy resources, than to the profits for the gas companies which keep us dependent on oil from repressive governments. I’d rather see money being used to give people a living wage, rather than used to give to the rich and take from the poor.  

On a local level, I’d rather see money being used to prosper local artists than to be used for goods created by slave labor or child labor. If people feel a tremendous need to be spending money, I’d rather see it used for scholarships, to build homes, perhaps through Habitat for Humanity, to go to creative people who are developing inventions, to help farmers who grow our food rather than those who destroy our scarce resources, and to help educate.    

In the movie, All the President’s Men, Deep Throat says, “Follow the money!” See where it leads. Will our government choose to spend it where it does good, or will it continue to benefit the rich and hurt the middle class and poor? We can ask of our money – whether individually or in our government – “Who does this purchase benefit? Who does it harm? Can this make a positive difference for a person, or a country?”   

For readers, what have you found out when you follow the money? Do your values influence how you use money, or how you vote for others to use money?

We might think that global warming is a given, and that anybody who cares, to any extent about the earth, would be concerned. Yet, there are groups of people who don’t believe it, consider it a hoax, and want nothing to do with it. Many of these groups are conservative Christians. Why are they so resistant to caring, and so resistant to doing something about the problem? The Bible (both the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament) contain three different theologies about creation. Christians pick and choose, sometimes according to their own interpretations, other times, led by their preacher’s or priest’s viewpoint.  Many conservative Christians look at Genesis 1:28 which commands Man to have dominion over the earth and to subdue it. To some Christians, this means to conquer, to dominate, to have power over the earth, and to make the earth serve us.   “Subdue” (kadash or kavash in Hebrew) implies power and control. The word “dominion” (“radah”, or “rdh”) seems to reinforce this point, since this can imply a malevolent, or benevolent rule. Another meaning of this word is “to rule as God rules” which some Christians interpret as a benevolent rule, much like the sun and the moon in Genesis 1:16-18 are given power to rule over day and night.  This is not about exploiting, but about working in harmony.  This idea of dominion is found in few other places in the Bible. The prevailing view can be found if Christians turn the page in their Bible, to Genesis 2:15. Here they’ll find another view of our relationship to Creation: we are to cultivate and care for the garden. This view is reiterated in many places in the Bible – Noah showed care by saving two of every species so they wouldn’t become extinct. We are told to show compassion to animals and to treat them properly, (Deuteronomy 22, Deut. 20) and Jesus spoke about God’s care for the lilies of the field and the birds of the air. (Matthew 6, Luke 12).  Some more mystical Christians speak of the Cosmic Christ – the Spirit that breathes and lives beneath and behind all of creation. This idea is expressed through Elizabeth Barrett Browning’s poem that says “Earth’s crammed with heaven, and every common bush afire with God; And only he who sees takes off his shoes; the rest sit round it and pluck blackberries.” If Creation is filled with the Spirit, then clearly the many ways that we pollute, destroy, and ignore creation is contrary to this view of religion and spirituality.  There is one other Christian view of theology that often leads fundamentalists to a stance that doesn’t care and doesn’t believe that our Earth is at risk. This group believes that Jesus is coming soon, and that there’s no point in doing anything because we won’t be around long enough to worry about global warming’s ultimate disaster. They take their theology from Matthew 24 which tells of signs of the Second Coming (wars, earthquakes, famines, etc.) and from I and 2 Thessalonians and Revelation which also speaks of signs and end times. Of course, the Second Coming didn’t come fast enough to save the victims of Hurricane Katrina, or the victims of the recent tornadoes in the Midwest, or to save Canada from our acid rain, or to save the many victims in Third World countries who are starving from drought, and famine, and lack of clean water, and lack of resources which has led to wars. And Jesus made it clear that we don’t know when the end times will happen. We are to remain responsible.  Although there are many Christians who refuse to consider global warming and its destruction because of their focus on dominion theology and the theology of the Second Coming, to me, this is an untenable Christian stance and an untenable spiritual stance, no matter what the spiritual discipline. It asks us to stop caring for the earth, and instead, to turn a blind eye. It lacks compassion, spirituality, and responsibility. Jesus might say to this, “Are your minds closed? Have you eyes and do not see, ears and do not hear?” (Mk 8).  At this point, the problem is clear.