I suppose, as someone who is both religious and left of center, I should weigh in on the current, potentially fruitful, round of the ongoing discussion of religion and the left.
For a roundup, see "Things I Don't Believe" and "Self-inflicted Wounds" from Patrick Nielsen Hayden, who also points us to this post from everythingsruined. Allen Brill chimes in with "The Progressive Penchant for Self-Destruction," which follows Melanie's comments on "Shooting Self in Guts." And Kevin Drum offers his own Religion Update roundup that includes links to contributions from several others, including Atrios, Suburban Guerrilla and Amy Sullivan — who writes about this topic with great frequency and insight.
The breadth and diversity of viewpoints in this discussion is itself an indication that lefty types are capable of discussing religion thoughtfully and with respect. Much of what I'd want to say on this subject is already said by one or more of the above voices, so I haven't much to add beyond my own personal experience — what we evangelical types like to call "my testimony."
My own progressive views on political and social matters arises from my faith. I'm what Anne Lamott would call one of those "Jesus-y people" and my political views tend to be shaped by Jesus-y concerns for the poor and the powerless.
As such, there are two kinds of people I don't fully understand. The first are allegedly religious people whose lives, including their politics, include no accounting for the poor and the powerless. The second are those people who, despite having no apparent religious basis for their beliefs or actions, are nonetheless driven by a concern for justice and the needs of others.
The first group, which includes a dismaying number of American Christians, has the means, the motive and the opportunity to "seek justice and pursue it." Yet for the most part, they don't. They seem more interested in Bowdlerizing the Superbowl half-time show than they do in aiding widows and orphans in their distress. I have little patience or respect for such people.
I have a great deal of respect for the second group. They are working to clothe the naked, feed the hungry, heal the sick and welcome the stranger in ways that put me to shame. Of such is the kingdom.
Both groups are a reminder of the humbling (and, for those of us who profess to be Christian, frightening) lesson of Jesus' parable of the sheep and the goats. In this story of the final judgment, there are only two kinds of people — the two groups described above. The goats are good, devout, church-going religious folk. They get sent to judgment. None of the sheep seem to recognize this Jesus fellow, they've never even heard of the guy.
Regarding disputes between religious liberal types and secular liberal types, Patrick writes:
I am by temperament a promoter of coalitions and alliances, and in that persona I wince when I see potential allies grinding their heels into one another’s toes.
This desire to build coalitions often runs afoul of what Allen calls progressives' "penchant for self-destruction." We like purity and the control that comes from maintaining such purity in our coalitions. We tend to be like Jesus' 12 disciples, who seemed to think their special place of privilege was threatened when others, outside their little clique, helped to advance their cause. The ninth chapter of Luke tells this story:
An argument started among the disciples as to which of them would be the greatest. Jesus, knowing their thoughts, took a little child and had him stand beside him. Then he said to them, "Whoever welcomes this little child in my name welcomes me; and whoever welcomes me welcomes the one who sent me. For he who is least among you all — he is the greatest."
"Master," said John, "we saw a man driving out demons in your name and we tried to stop him, because he is not one of us."
"Do not stop him," Jesus said, "for whoever is not against you is for you."
Those who have ears to hear, let them hear.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In