ROCK’N’ROLL CONSERVATISM AND CHRISTIAN FAITH: Telford Work responds to my post on “rock’n’roll conservatism” (not to be confused with “South Park Republicanism,” sigh). Here’s what I sent him:

OK, well, first, thanks very much for the thoughtful reply–and I’m glad to see we agree on so much!

As for your criticisms/questions (not sure to what extent you were criticizing as opposed to wondering whether criticism was in order): Yeah, I left out the fundamental beliefs that underly, in my view, the principles/practical applications I listed. (BTW, “principles” referred to what you might call second-level principles–ethics not metaphysics–and even the “principles” list was almost entirely focused on the next steps after ethics–applying pre-existing ethical principles to contemporary

situations. “Principles” in that context wasn’t supposed to imply, say, “The five of us structure our entire lives around these fundamental beliefs,” but rather, “Here are some tests we use in figuring out which policies are likely to do more good than harm and vice versa.” I guess that wasn’t clear, so I can certainly clear that up.)

I left out specifically Christian references for three main reasons:

1) This set of political beliefs arose as an undesigned, unaimed-for convergence of beliefs between me and my friends, as described. We were actually trying to do something totally different (had to do with politicking in an undergrad organization we’re all in) when we ended up becoming friends and convincing one another of many ethical and practical claims, but, so far, few religious claims. (We’re working on it!) To import religious claims that my friends couldn’t sign on to would be, in my view, to

be false to what actually happened as well as unnecessary.

2) I really did not want to get into a big public kerfuffle with my friends about the fact that I don’t think their religious or anti-religious beliefs support their ethics. Why should I use the context of that post to do that? We talk about it privately, and I’ve made it clear quite often on my site that I do believe my ethical stances only make sense given the underlying fact of Christ.

3) I didn’t think it was necessary to make RNRC a project only Christians could undertake. Analogy: I’ve prayed the rosary outside abortion sites, with a big honkin’ picture of Our Lady of Guadelupe; I’ve also participated in pro-life activities that weren’t associated with Christianity in any way. In fact, the group I co-founded in college, the Yale Pro-Life League, had an exec. board that was at least half atheist. To my mind, this is an accomplishment, not a reason to worry that I’m compromising the faith. Getting non-Christians to agree is a feature, not a bug, no?

So, no, I don’t think RNRC is the product of “American ideology” or “liberal modernism” as vs. Christianity. I’m not sure whether you’re just saying that Christians should never discuss politics without pointing out the ways in which those political beliefs derive from our faith (I disagree), or if you’re making a specific claim that the stuff included in “RNRC” seems more American-ideological than other possible political stances that both Christians and non-Christians could agree on.

If the former, how is that different from saying, “You can’t do anything until you can agree on everything”? If the latter, this sounds more promising as a criticism–where do you most sense encroaching liberal modernism? In what’s said, what’s unsaid?

Thanks again–do let me know if you have more stuff to say about this–I check in on you every other day or so and am always edified/challenged.