I’m in the middle of a biography of Bonhoeffer and as I’m reading about his decision to return to Germany when he could have stayed safe in the US, I’m struck by something.
Picture the person who best exemplifies a progressive Christian, then imagine them faced with a decision that involved them knowingly heading into a situation filled with hardship and personal risk. Then imagine them spending days digging deep into scripture (meditating on it) with the conviction that God will speak to them through scripture and give them guidance. Then imagine them choosing the path of maximum personal danger.
I look at folx like Shuck, McLaren, etc in that position and decide how likely that is.
Also, the comparison between the “German Christians” twisting of scripture reminds me of some of the more creative efforts of progressive Christians.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
If I understand your point here, I've also had aasimar thought in relation to conservatives, especially on the abortion issue. If you are truly believe that the u.s. murdering millions of babies every year, what is preventing you all from rising up to protect those babies? You would think if you thought it was a modern-day Holocaust, that y'all would even take arms to defend these babies from these murderers. Is it cowardice that prevents you off from doing so? Or is it, as I think more likely, at least a bit of doubt in your mind that you are on the right on this issue?
I don't think you understand my point here.
1. I can't imagine anyone I know of who considers themselves as progressive christians searching the scriptures specifically expecting that God would speak directly to them through scripture and provide them with specific direct guidance for their actions.
2. Apparently you are not aware of the pro lifers who risk arrest/are arrested for their actions. Apparently you missed the hundreds of thousands who just marched in DC recently.
3. If one looks at the two situations and realizes that they aren't analogous, and the success being had in educing both abortion and government support of abortion, it's reasonable to conclude that it's possible to achieve the goals of the pro life movement without resorting to violence.
4. Your analogy breaks down in your implicit assumption that all pro lifers are committed conservative Christians.
Now, to what's interesting in your response.
1. The fact that, given the fact that you didn't actually rebut or even argue that my point is correct, your response is to try to establish an equivalency that attempts to divert attention from the point of the post.
2. Given the vitriol you've aimed at pro lifers in the past, I find it hard to believe that you would support taking up arms to stop abortion.
3. I don't believe that the "u.s is murdering millions of babies each year". I acknowledge the reality that individuals and organizations in the U.S. are doing so, but I'm not arguing that it's U.S. government policy. If the U.S. government were actually engaged in the killing of millions of innocents, then it might be justifiable to take up arms against the government. But, that's the flaw in your analogy.
4. I'll go a step further. Given that most progressive christians seem to accept pacifism to some degree or another, not only could I not imagine any progressive christian I'm aware of deciding that God (through scripture) had directly led them to pursue the course of maximum physical danger for themselves, I can't imagine any of them actively engaging in anything that would result in the assassination of anyone.
The fact that your response is not to defend progressive christions, but to malign pro lifers (of all stripes) seems to indicate a degree of agreement with my premise, but an unwillingness to admit that agreement.
"Or is it, as I think more likely, at least a bit of doubt in your mind that you are on the right on this issue?"
As with most of Dan's positions, this is incredibly absurd. It suggests that because pro-lifers aren't quick to take up arms against ANY pro-abort entity, that somehow that indicates doubt about the obviously morality of the pro-life side of the debate.
We can even go so far as to say that violent defense of the unborn isn't completely off the table, and what it proves is that the conservative side doesn't put violent response as a top of the list option, be it foreign affairs or abortion. Dan actually...most likely unwittingly...proves the moral superiority of the pro-life, conservative side of the divide.
Art, I think part of that reticence is the fact that abortion isn’t a government mandated program. If it were, then the dynamic might be different. If you were going to draw a better parallel, it would be China. In China you have forced abortions and Christianity persecuted. I’d be shocked to see anyone I can think of who identifies as a progressive christian, who’d willingly head into China (or many Moslem countries) to protest anything, let alone preach the gospel. Hell, you hear enough progressives saying that the early church practiced communism, that they might be welcomed in China.
It’s interesting that Dan chose not to defend his side, but to use a false equivalence to attack his perceived enemies.
Not surprisingly, you missed the point. I am quite glad that pro-lifers have not taken up arms, thus, I am not maligning them for failing to take up arms. God forbid.
To your point, it appears to be a rather small minded the misinformed shot intended to malign Progressive Christians. You said...
"Picture the person who best exemplifies a progressive Christian, then imagine them faced with a decision that involved them knowingly heading into a situation filled with hardship and personal risk."
As in all groups there is a wide range of characteristics and behaviors. But the best progressives that I know, my family and colleagues and friends at church and at work, they all dedicate themselves to work full of hardships and some risks. They pour out their lives as teachers, social workers, medical and mental health workers, Justice workers here in the US and in places like Guatemala, Cuba, Morocco, Nicaragua, Etc.
Are all Progressive Christians equally committed to pouring out their lives in service to others? No, of course not. No more than all conservative Christians are equally committed to pouring out their lives in service to others at some personal cost. But many of us are, and many of us do. And not all of us agree with the idea a political assassinations being the preferred method of dealing with Injustice.
The you chose to word your congratulations as questioning the convictions of your enemies. Interesting.
What a tepid and uninspired “defense” of progressive christians.
You’ve missed a big portion of my point, and I’ll leave you to congratulate you and yours on the bravery shown by willingly placing yourselves at great personal risk.
You’ll note that this clearly wasn’t the broad indictment of progressive christians you perceived it to be. If you’ll note, it’s more about asking questions than making the sort of sweeping generalizations you tend toward.
As long as your self esteem is intact, that’s all that matters.
FYI, no one said that regicide was the preferred method for dealing with injustice. However, had Canaris and the rest of the resistance succeeded in deposing Hitler in 1939, it would have only saved somewhere in the neighborhood of 20-25 million lives. You’re right, killing Hitler in 1939 (or earlier) would have been a horrible mistake.
Again, as always, you miss my points. At least you're consistent.
If you hadn’t been so effective at both missing my point and at not defending your folx, your tactic would be amusing, Instead it’s just kind of pathetic to see you set up your excuse for bailing so quickly.
Post a Comment