Why the Left Hates Sex
Jennifer Roback Morse has gone out on a limb, tackling Why the Left Hates Sex (HT: JT). She raises some great points here, basically asserting that liberalism is deeply opposed to anything other than intrinsic egalitarianism. That commitment places it on a collision course with gender differences, and, I would argue, creates a fundmental tension with the much of the content in Scripture.
However, I couldn't help but think as I read the article: if the left hates sex, then what does the right hate? I can't escape the feeling that conservativism is also deeply committed to something equally unbiblical... but I'm not certain I can put my finger on a single term that captures it yet.
So I'd like to invite you to share your thoughts on Why the Right Hates ________ - you fill in the blank.
posted by Pilgrim in Progress @ 1:02 PM
8 comments
8 Comments:
What political party do you think Jesus identified with in his day?
(I have this recollection of Prof. Steve Taylory in NT Intro drawing a box on the board, charting out the various political factions in 1c Palestine, and then asking - "Where does Jesus' message fit?" A: "He's outside the box...")
As for actual good being achieved by either side in the political process, I'm afraid I haven't seen much evidence of it...
The purpose of my post wasn't to denigrate politics, however - it was just to say "what are some of the idols the right holds" (and if we can't see any, I don't think we're looking very carefully...)
Not to quibble over kibble, but...
... while Jesus was outside of the box politically speaking, the early church (1-3 centuries)was definately inside the box, and by the 4th century, the Church had defined the political box, those who could be in it, and those whose who couldn't.
Soooooooo, your argument is lacking some oomph.
Oh, I would say that the RIGHT hates meekness.
What's that Anne LaMott quote that everyone is using lately? It goes something like:
"You know you've remade God in your image when He hates all the same people you do."
So, I haven't filled in your blank, but mostly when I look to the right they seem to hate the Left so much that they are now morphing into the left.
What I notice mostly is that the Right likes putting people in boxes and being "right."
Jesus liked taking people out of their boxes and reminding them of their True Identity. Go figure ....
Nice question tho ...
Why the Right Hates "Not Being RIGHT"... hmmm, I think you might be onto something there. Fits nicely with what Aegidius says about meekness. As for me, I suspect "Consumerism", "Individualism", and "It'll-all-work-if-you-just-try-hard-enough" are somewhere in the mix as well (but some of those may be more 'American' than specifically 'right' or 'left')
Great comments, Sonja, thanks!
To dovetail with the Rooster, I would add:
a)Jesus was not outside the Box, Jesus is the Box.
b)In Romans, Paul commands us to submit to the authority that is placed over us. I would argue that this authority is not our elected officials per se (as Americans, mind you), but to the Constitution.
c)it is our duty as Christians to protect, uphold, and abide by the Constitution. This means we have to choose sides, we have to be informed, and we have to be involved.
d)The question is not "is Jesus a Democrat or Republican", "but how is my political activity advancing the kingdom"?
****
FYI, no I am not a Republican, I am a Federalist/ Contitutionalist mix.
Jesus IS the box? Which box? The political one? I doubt you want to say that, yet that's the context of my original comment.
In that sense, I _don't_ think the church of the first three centuries was "inside the box" - I think they definitely changed the political landscape (by the 4th c), but the way they did it was NOT by participating in the political process of the day.
(Unless of course you consider "feeding the lions" and "taking in the games down at the coliseum" part of the "participation" process)
I made a typo: when I wrote "Jesus was not outside the box", it should have been "Jesus is not outside the box", which fits contextually with the latter part of the sentence. Mea Culpa.
1)"Was" and "is" are two very different words.
So, I am not contradicting your first point, which I still think is overly simplistic.
2)I feel very confident in saying the 1-3 c. (ie 'early')church was involved in politics, much more so than supporting the wildlife.
Perhaps the modern construct of politics is acting as a hinderance in this discussion (back to the "was" and "is" thingy). No, the early church did not run for office, have PAC groups, etc. But they did lobby govenors, they were involved in adjudication (sic), and they did make political contributions of money. I don't have the sources available, but I did write quite a few papers in college about this very topic, and clearly remember being able to document several instances of the aforementioned practices happening, and the tone of the documentation was that it was not extraordinary in nature.
Two instances that come to mind (sorry, I can't remember the sources, it was @ 10 years ago): one involved two or three young men throwing stones at a govenor's residence to gain an audience. Their intent was so that they could be fed to the lions, which the govenor reluctantly allowed due to their persistence. The other instance involved "ransoming" wealthy Christians from the arena via well placed connections and/or well placed donations.
In the context of the political workings of this time, this places both groups well inside "the arena of political activity" (pun intended).
My point being, though not a major political force, the early church was involved in the political process of the day. More of a parlitarian model of them alligning themselves with larger, more powerful groups, than perhaps the federal system we Americans are familiar with.
Post a Comment
<< Home