Thank God and Harper's Magazine. Really.

The current issue of Harper's has an excellent essay from Bill McKibben called "The Christian Paradox." McKibben attempts to answer the question: why doesn't a self-described Christian nation act Christian? The ultimate answer is that most of these Christians are in fact not Christians or are grossly misinformed about what it means to be a Christian. In other words, they are following a different creed than the one Jesus presented. His case is largely anecdotal and statistical, but his arguments are withering and for those of us on the inside have the ring of truth. Take this quote about megachurches:

The pastors focus relentlessly on you and your individual needs. Their goal is to service consumers—not communities but individuals: "seekers" is the term of art, people who feel the need for some spirituality in their (or their children's) lives but who aren't tightly bound to any particular denomination or school of thought. The result is often a kind of soft-focus, comfortable, suburban faith.

His points are frequently political since American Christians are largely in bed with one political party or the other. (His comments are directed more at the right than the left, and probably rightly so, but the left needs to be aware of their foibles as well.)

A rich man came to Jesus one day and asked what he should do to get into heaven. Jesus did not say he should invest, spend, and let the benefits trickle down; he said sell what you have, give the money to the poor, and follow me. Few plainer words have been spoken. And yet, for some reason, the Christian Coalition of America...proclaimed last year that its top legislative priority would be "making permanent President Bush's 2001 federal tax cuts."

This is must read stuff, folks. It's biblical, prophetic, direct, and oh my God...Gospel stuff! Listen to his take on the Christian Right:

The power of the Christian right rests largely in the fact that they boldly claim religious authority, and by their very boldness convince the rest of us that they must know what they're talking about...But their theology is appealing for another reason too: it coincides with what we want to believe. How nice it would be if Jesus had declared that our income was ours to keep...Religious conservatives will always have a comparatively easy sell.

Thank you, Bill McKibben. After last month's much-deserved evisceration of evangelicals in Harper's, you presented a picture of the Gospel that is balanced, appealing, honest, and redemptive. Give this man an Amy Award. That's the August 2005 issue of Harper's. Pick one up. Seriously.

On a lighter note, I've uploaded the first photo album. You'll find it in the left column: White Trash Friday Night.

Comments

[Dr. Mike Kear]

Nice tat!

[bobstevens]

I don't mean to be depressing, but have you heard about Justice Sunday II yet?

It's subtitled "God save the United States and this Honorable Court!"

They're bringing famous country music washup Lee Greenwood in to sing his one hit wonder!

[Monk-in-Training]

That is a wonderful posting, thx!

[Bubba]

That article may well contain the most illogical "and yet" phrase I've ever seen.

Christ told the man to sell what he had and give it to the poor, "and yet" conservative Christians support tax cuts?

I'm somewhat familiar with that story -- found in Mt 19, Mr 10, and Lk 18 -- and I am aware that there is some controversy as to whether Christ's command to this one individual is meant to be taken universally.

But even ignoring that controversy, there's nothing about taxes. Jesus does not tell the rich man to go and give his money to the government so that the government can distribute it to the poor.

And Jesus certainly does not tell the rich man to encourage the government to tax others and take their money (under threat of force) so that it can be used to feed the poor.

In fact, nothing Jesus commands about meeting the material needs of others involves either a bureaucratic middleman or a group of coerced financiers (i.e., taxpayers). Thus, there's nothing inherently hypocritical about Christians supporting tax cuts.

The question can be asked, what do the members of the Christian Coalition do with the extra earnings they keep? Do they use the money to glorify God and help their neighbors? Or do they use the money to buy a larger television?

That's a fair question, but that's an entirely different question than their position on tax policy.

[greg]

Bubba,

If you're the same Bubba from Bruce's Mainstream Baptist blog, I'll happily ignore you for the troll you are. If not, let me know.

[greg]

Bubba,

Just checked your IP. You're from Carnegie Melon. I'm guessing that makes you Bubban and anonymous the lying, git of a troll from Bruce's blog. Buh-bye.

[Scott]

Bubba made some good points. Why is everybody just ignoring him?

[Scott]

another question...what percentage of our income does it become "Christian" to keep? 80%, 50%, 25%? Give me a number. I know of no Christian Conservative that says we should keep ALL our income and give NO money to government functions. So its just a question of degrees. What makes your degree of taxation more "Christian" than mine?

[greg]

Scott,

If you're "learn to read" Scott, then this will be my last comment to you. I'll check the IP later and find out. If you've read the article I referenced, I'd be happy to talk to you about it. If not, I've no interest in engaging in a "pick a random number so we can argue Republican and/or conservative values" fight. If you think that you're a good conservative and a good Christian, dandy. If you had read the article you would know that McKibben wasn't endorsing a certain tax rate; he was wondering why an allegedly Christian organization would focus on tax cuts as a number one priority in a world that had far larger problems. A fair question and one that has nothing to do with what percentage of taxation is more Christian.

[greg]

Scott,

You're clean. Nice to know you're not "Scott the man."

[YSHarv]

Ah, Well.

I read the Harper's article on the train yesterday. I thought it was great, but upon looking at some of the internet chatter on this I am a little dismayed.

I see from the comments here that evangelicals and fundamentalists are pulling the usual methods.

Apparently, some parts of the Bible, or Jesus's words are literal, but other things are vague, and there are "controversies."

I hear the old - "Jesus was only talking to that specific man," defense all the time. However, anybody who uses that defense doesn't realize that by the very fact that they are trying to defend their possession of worldly goods they, in effect, ARE that specific man Jesus to whom Jesus was speaking.

[Michael]

I can't figure out why you censored Bubba, and when Scott came to his defense you looked like you were going to attack him, too.

I read the Harper's article. Pfft. Another excuse to attack Christians. Pick a point - teenage pregnancy, for instance. Christians eith want abstinence taught or don't teach about sex at all, stick to math and science. Instead, they teach Suzy how to put a condom on a cucumber and then wonder why she gets pregnant. And somehow that's the Christian's fault. Or take the divorce rate of the Dutch - they legalized gay marriage so long ago, the term means little to them anymore. The marriage rate is even lower over there as most people don't get married at all, they just cohabitate for 3 to 7 years together and move on. Cohabitation couples aren't even counted in the divorce rate. No surprise that the few people still getting married over there are committed, but the number of people getting married is dropping. And somehow that's the fault of the American Christian, too.

[greg]

Michael,

I ignored Bubba based on his behavior on a friend's blog, not this one. We are having a conversation off-blog to start over with the goal of having him join the conversation.

I deleted a nasty comment from another Scott, so I was just ensuring this Scott wasn't the same person. He wasn't. I think I responded fairly to his comment, seeing as he had not read the article in question and wanted to comment on it anyway.

You'll need to stop sharing the whole divorce rate in Holland stuff too. Dobson has been touting a study that was long since debunked. He knows that, but he touts it anyway. Wonder what his agenda is... As for condoms and cucumbers, another Christian scare tactic. I've had a daughter in public schools and now a step-daughter. Neither put a condom on the cucumber. Seriously, Michael, all you've done is increase my belief that fundangelicals believe what they want irrespective of the evidence because it's politically or religiously or socially convenient.

And as for McKibben attacking Christians, he is one. If you'd actually read the article, you'd know that.

[Michael]

I did read the article. Hebrews tells Christians to encourage other Christians. Paul tells us in his letter to the Corinthians not to attack other Christians on their belief.

McKibben does neither of these things - he bashes christians for their failures. While Europeans give concerts to raise awareness about African aid, Christian churches have been sending over missionaries, building water wells, providing food and clothing for years. Yet McKibben bashes them for not doing enough.

And if you're going to dismiss opposing viewpoints as "politically or religiously or socially convenient", I hardly see how your viewpoint is any different. You finally found an article that let's you bash fundamentals and reinforce your pre-existing viewpoint. Huzzah.

[greg]

Michael,

Nice job ignoring the Dobson stuff. Not to mention your selective quoting of Scripture. Isn't it also Paul who criticizes Peter publicly for shunning the Gentiles? Didn't that letter make it into Scripture? And what of the letters in the Revelation? Aren't they in fact critical of churches? What about Jude? Really, you should be a little more honest about Scripture choices.

McKibben rightly points out that America, though calling itself a Christian nation, often behaves politically, especially in foreign policy and care for the marginalized, as less than Christian. It's a fair critique, it's accurate, and it's one that isn't answered by pointing to water wells in Africa. The Church is only one organization among many doing relief work around the world. The real issue is that if a nation or government claims a Christian origin and underlying philosophy for itself, it should live up to that philosophy, or at least try.

[Layman]

"A rich man came to Jesus one day and asked what he should do to get into heaven. Jesus did not say he should invest, spend, and let the benefits trickle down; he said sell what you have, give the money to the poor, and follow me. Few plainer words have been spoken. And yet, for some reason, the Christian Coalition of America...proclaimed last year that its top legislative priority would be "making permanent President Bush's 2001 federal tax cuts.""

Wow. McKibben equates paying your taxes as giving to charity. But, in fact, the majority of Americans pay less than 5% of the taxes. So, to take McKibben's tact, where did Jesus say that though shalt take thy neibhor's money, spend it on social programs of questionable utility, and proclaim theyself righteous and a follower of my command that YOU give help to the poor? Must have missed that one.

I blogged on the online version of his article, which is replete with similar errors in thought and understanding.

[greg]

layman,

Nice try. The issue isn't equating taxes with charity, and that is not what McKibben does. He is talking about allowing finances to determine our ethics. As I said to Steve: "...he was wondering why an allegedly Christian organization would focus on tax cuts as a number one priority in a world that had far larger problems." The question still stands and Christian conservatives go to great lengths to demonize McKibben rather than simply answer the question of why this organization would make tax cuts their "number one priority." Try again.

[Layman]

McKibben is making a much broader assault on American Christianity than you imply. And throughout it, he equates support for increase government welfare programs as the apparently the exclusive means by which American Christians can show they are "charitable." In other words, he ignores whether and how much time and money American Christians actually devote to helping others, and instead focuses on why they are not supporting certain liberal political agendas.

To pretend he is being critical of one groups' legislative priorities is disengenuous.

As for tax cuts, if a Christian group thinks tax cuts really will help the economy and the jobless and underpaid subject to Adam Smith's whims, I don't have a problem with their advocacy. On the other hand, if they are just greedy bottom feeders who want a little more cash in their paychecks, they are not acting Christian at all. The real questions, in other words, are not being asked.

[Layman]

I would also add that it is a gross oversimplification to claim that Bush's tax bill was only about cutting taxes for the wealthy. It, in fact, cut taxes for everyone and increased income-indexed credits for children (which I supported but do not qualify for despite having 2 kids and another on the way). And, in fact, it completely eliminated any tax burden at all for millions of Americans by moving the lowest tax bracket UP in income.

So the Christian Coalitionf or American could have been concerned with many things unrelated to giving "the rich" (known by some as employers) a tax cut. In any event, we still have this strange equation of paying taxes with giving to charity.

[greg]

Layman,

I have no intention of arguing economics with you. There are others that lurk around here that are far better at it. You are critiquing McKibben's article through a politically conservative lens rather than just reading what he writes. He doesn't believe in trickle down economics. Neither does anyone else who is on the bottom and are still waiting for the trickle. The gap between richest and poorest continues to grow while conservatives keep promising that giving rich people more money will help everyone. Please. McKibben's critique of the Christian Right is well deserved, prophetic, and measured. And please let's not pretend that American Christians are generous. I've been in ministry. I know how much they give. The vast majority of so-called disciples give far less than 10% of their incomes.

Nor am I implying that he's only picking on the legislative priorities of one group. My point was more ad hoc and related to the argument you and Steve made about taxes and tax cuts. In that particular section of the article McKibben rightly points out that a so-called Christian group ought to find something a little more important than tax cuts to name as its number one priority. Why not hunger, clean water, AIDS, hell, why not evangelism? No, tax cuts are far more important to the life of the Church. Once again, conservatives are immune to irony. A certain man had such a rich harvest that his barns would not hold it all, so he thought to himself, "I'll build a bigger barn to hold it." Jesus said, "You fool, tonight your life will be required of you..." How will we respond to the judgment of God then? Dear Lord, I thought you wanted me to acquire crap while the world starved...

[Layman]

The fact remains that American Christians are much more generous than Secular Americans. In fact, American Christains are much more generous than the rest of the world. Should they give more? Yeah, I think so. But to supposedly analyze how much American Christians are complying with Jesus' command to remember the poor while ignoring all the money American Christians actually give to charties is not sound analysis.

Many Christian groups have many different focuses, as is appropriate. Should Christian environmentalists be conemdned for not doing enough to support evangelism? Should Christian pro-life groups be condemned because they do not do enough about aids? Should Christian groups such as Colson's Prison Fellowship Ministry be condemned for not doing enough to solve famine in Africa? I could go on and on. There are many Christian groups that could suffer this attack.

Judging a person's Christanity by the faith they have in certain government programs is not a Christian reprimand of a brother or sister, it is a political attack. That's all. Nothing more.

[The-Rafter]

When that certain government program supports their needs more than others, something is wrong. You may call it whatever attack you want but it is still wrong and people have the right to call them on it. The only reason other Christian groups could suffer this attack, is because they do need to give more. Why do what is just enough for the design of the group or ministry. Does ever little thing need a ministry group. We are breaking issues up and putting them into catagories that are supposed to cover a number of areas. Why? Why so many groups? Because we feel better if we give to certain ministry.

[greg]

Layman,

Since we've essentially moved some of this to Jesus Politics, I'll leave it alone for now. I did find your comments on "chasing the wind" enlightening though. So, do I qualify as a "liberal Christian" and what exactly are the criteria?

[Whisky Prajer]

Funny how quickly these discussions move to those damn tax cuts. McKibben doesn't even mention taxes. His point is that a population's religious claims aren't substantively backed up by statistically verifiable behavior. There's nothing new or even especially scandalous about his statements. What's scandalous is the claim that this nation is "Christian".

[Whisky Prajer]

Hmm. Seems there could be some discrepancy between what's on the web and what's on the printed page. Another shot of Jim Beam should correct my vision...

[Michael]

I think it would be up to us to decide what we are; I know I'm a conservative christian. Are you a liberal one? If you like the label, claim it; if you don't, then avoid it.

I would challlenge you, though, on interpetation of scripture. If the scripture says "XYZ is bad," do you a) justify it, b) ignore it, c) do your best to obey.

I think all Christians to the best of their ability ought to obey, but too often we see justification or avoidance.

[greg]

Michael,

Are you Layman or someone else from Chasing the Wind? My point was that Layman said that the initial responses from "liberal Christians" had not been promising. Obviously, you guys have some sort of idea what he means when he says that; at least I assume it's vocabulary you use when you converse, the definition of which you've at least somewhat agreed upon?

How exactly are you challenging me on the interpretation of Scripture? Which did you have in mind? Don't kill, maybe? So, do you justify it, ignore it, or do your best to obey? Which Scriptures did you have in mind? Sell what you have and give to the poor? Do not love the world nor the things of it? The love of money is the root of all kinds of evil? Which were you thinking of? Let me save a bit of time here too; if you're an inerrantist, this won't go very far.

[Michael]

Greg, I'm Michael from Chasing the Wind. I was researching that Harper's article when I stumbled across both yours and Layman's website. I have to admit I identify much more with Layman's interpretations.

I am not privy to Layman's "initial responses from liberal christians" comment, and dare not speak for him. However, I've had my own run-ins with "progressive" christians that seem to oppose my efforts to expand conservative christianity.

I also wasn't referring to a particular post of yours, so I wasn't challenging you at all on a particular point. I haven't heard the term "inerrantist" before, but I believe the bible is the Word of God as opposed to merely being some important collections of writings, if that's what you mean. I appreciate fellow Christians that challenge me to more closely follow the Word as opposed to saying, "that's alright, that's close enough."

Do I interpret "this won't go very far" to mean that you're intolerant of people like me? If so, I'll direct my attention elsewhere.

[greg]

Michael,

Bless you for your sober response. "This won't go far" is usually directed at those who believe the Bible to be inerrant, as opposed to simply inspired, and therefore insist that I believe every literal interpretation they offer. It debilitates rapidly into them questioning what kind of Christian I am for not being an inerrantist and usually ends with me saying something profane. Layman's initial "liberal christians" comment was on your blog, so I assumed you saw it. Sorry. So, yes, we're open to having a discussion. We actually have a few conservatives that lurk around here (hi, Scott H) and even post occasionally. All this to say that I like to think we can have a conversation. In my last comment I was responding to your entry: "I would challlenge you, though, on interpetation of scripture." What motivated that challenge?

[Michael]

While I believe the bible is "inerrant," I do not often believe the translation I'm reading is, nor do I believe that only I have the correct interpretation. Sometimes, though, the bible appears black and white. For instance, if your discussion "usually ends with me saying something profane," I might ask you to read James 1:26 (or the entire chapter of James 3, for that matter) and tell me how you interpret "If anyone considers himself religious and yet does not keep a tight rein on his tongue, he deceives himself and his religion is worthless." :P

I saw Layman's "liberal christians" comments, but I wasn't responding to that here, sorry. I have my own blog to run. :P

Perhaps "challenge" was a poor choice of a word, for it brings to mind some sort of fight. I meant to encourage to take all the bible in context; I see a lot of embracing of good scripture and avoiding scripture that rebukes us. We shouldn't try to offer a non-biblical justification why it shouldn't apply, nor should we avoid it, but embrace it. It wasn't mean as a particular challenge to any position you might hold (which, I may add, I have no idea what your positions are, since I'm new here.)

And on that note, I'm off for home. I'll be back. :)