The "E" word?
My friend and colleague, Steve Bussey, (a.k.a. The Flaming Liberal:0 ) directed me to the article from which I have appropriated this title. John Bruckeridge in the UK magazine "Christianity," discusses the issue of the term "evangelical" in his article. Bruckeridge writes this, "Evangelical is increasingly shorthand for: right-wing US politics, an arrogant loud mouth who refuses to listen to other people's opinions, men in grey suits who attempt to crowbar authorized version scripture verses into every situation, or 'happy-clappy' simpletons who gullibly swallow whatever their tub thumping minister tells them to believe. Today in the UK [ and may I add in the US] 'evangelical' is often linked with the ultimate 21st century swearword 'fundamentalist'. The result is the name 'evangelical' which years ago, may have smelt of roses - now has the aroma of the manure that fertilizes the bush." Of course Bruckeridge is using this title playing on the controversy of the "n-word" which is painful to African Americans and abhorrent to me personally.
I have always considered myself an evangelical. I always thought that evangelicals believed some basic scripturally supported tenets. They believe in:
1. The supremacy of Christ
2. The authority of The Bible as the Word of the Lord
3. The need for salvation in Jesus
4. The necessity of fulfilling the Great Commission
There may be a myriad of other beliefs you would add to this list, but I see these as fundamental to the evangelical tradition. So what happened to make us the bad guys? Do we really resemble Ned Flanders from the Simpsons?
It is so bad that my youngest son, who is a political science major in college, was in a discussion with a friend who started ripping apart evangelicals. My son simply indicated that he considered himself an evangelical and that he did not believe that he resembled any of the characteristics painted by his fellow student. Now mind you, our son is a card carrying Republican. He does, however, disagree with many of the policies of his party. He chose the party not because of his religious beliefs.
His friend proceeded to just castigate him. He called after the exchange. He was devastated that the core values which he saw as evangelical, were nothing near what his friend had described. Our son was crushed.
So what has happened? I am wondering that. I am also wondering if I am an evangelical as the world sees it or as in fact, many of my evangelical friends are. Are we really like Ned Flanders?
Andrew Sullivan, a man who claims to be a believer, wrote and article in the most recent issue of "Time." He coined the term "Christianist" to describe this new brand of what he sees as flag-waving, moralistic religiosity. He believes that what he sees as the hijacking of evangelicalism and Christianity is like the Islamist movement which has put a new face on the Muslim community. In other words, does that behavior really reflect the mainstream of Bible-believing, Christ-loving, blood-washed, Spirit-filled Christians?
In recent days, I have been wondering if I am a post-evangelical. I deeply love Jesus and want others to love Him and experience His grace as well. I am tired, however, of packaged methods of evangelism which are more like sales pitches than invitations to loving relationships. I see those now as cheap excuses for the grace-based relationship our Lord wants to have with us. They seem more like contracts, where we seal the deal and move onto the next "mark." Is that really making disciples?
I am also becoming more and more uncomfortable about the idea often is implied that "church will fix someone." People don't need church, they need Jesus.
How tolerant should we be? That is my real struggle. Maybe that is what happened. In our right-intentioned drive to be pure people and lead others to the purity of Jesus, have we just become so hard-nosed that when we should have been lovingly engaging behavior, we have been afraid to get dirty to clean the wounds of lost people?
Is the Salvation Army an evangelical movement as the world describes evangelicalism? Should we be? If we do, what will that do to our credibility with those we are trying to bring to Jesus? What about grace? Does the "E" word really line up with our core values? I am struggling with this.
What do you think?
I have always considered myself an evangelical. I always thought that evangelicals believed some basic scripturally supported tenets. They believe in:
1. The supremacy of Christ
2. The authority of The Bible as the Word of the Lord
3. The need for salvation in Jesus
4. The necessity of fulfilling the Great Commission
There may be a myriad of other beliefs you would add to this list, but I see these as fundamental to the evangelical tradition. So what happened to make us the bad guys? Do we really resemble Ned Flanders from the Simpsons?
It is so bad that my youngest son, who is a political science major in college, was in a discussion with a friend who started ripping apart evangelicals. My son simply indicated that he considered himself an evangelical and that he did not believe that he resembled any of the characteristics painted by his fellow student. Now mind you, our son is a card carrying Republican. He does, however, disagree with many of the policies of his party. He chose the party not because of his religious beliefs.
His friend proceeded to just castigate him. He called after the exchange. He was devastated that the core values which he saw as evangelical, were nothing near what his friend had described. Our son was crushed.
So what has happened? I am wondering that. I am also wondering if I am an evangelical as the world sees it or as in fact, many of my evangelical friends are. Are we really like Ned Flanders?
Andrew Sullivan, a man who claims to be a believer, wrote and article in the most recent issue of "Time." He coined the term "Christianist" to describe this new brand of what he sees as flag-waving, moralistic religiosity. He believes that what he sees as the hijacking of evangelicalism and Christianity is like the Islamist movement which has put a new face on the Muslim community. In other words, does that behavior really reflect the mainstream of Bible-believing, Christ-loving, blood-washed, Spirit-filled Christians?
In recent days, I have been wondering if I am a post-evangelical. I deeply love Jesus and want others to love Him and experience His grace as well. I am tired, however, of packaged methods of evangelism which are more like sales pitches than invitations to loving relationships. I see those now as cheap excuses for the grace-based relationship our Lord wants to have with us. They seem more like contracts, where we seal the deal and move onto the next "mark." Is that really making disciples?
I am also becoming more and more uncomfortable about the idea often is implied that "church will fix someone." People don't need church, they need Jesus.
How tolerant should we be? That is my real struggle. Maybe that is what happened. In our right-intentioned drive to be pure people and lead others to the purity of Jesus, have we just become so hard-nosed that when we should have been lovingly engaging behavior, we have been afraid to get dirty to clean the wounds of lost people?
Is the Salvation Army an evangelical movement as the world describes evangelicalism? Should we be? If we do, what will that do to our credibility with those we are trying to bring to Jesus? What about grace? Does the "E" word really line up with our core values? I am struggling with this.
What do you think?
posted by Larry at 1:48 PM
28 Comments:
Hey... A flaming liberal?
That's Armida's job :)
This issue of evangelical identity is an incredibly HOT topic right now on some of the blogs I've been circumnavigating.
Who are we? Is there one monolithic expression of evangelicalism or is it possible that our strength is found in our difference? Can we be proud of who we are? Is there a need for a confessing evangelical church? etc. etc.
I've recently beeen wrestling with this for a paper I wrote on this topic which I've called (shameless plug): Essentializing the Evangelical? The Representation and Reception of Evangelicals in Popular Culture.
[Can be found @ : http://stevebussey.blogspot.com/2006/05/essentializing-evangelical_09.html ]
I think this is the time when we really need to thrash out our sense of identity(ies) so that we can unabashadly BE who we say we are...
Thanks for creating this post Larry - I'm really looking forward to the debate!
Fanning the Flame :)
Steve
Great post.
It’s unfortunate that some well-intentioned Christians got legalistic, pointed a finger or two, and gave the term “evangelical” a bad name. It’s true though, evangelicals can appear a little uptight and graceless.
How tolerant should we be? Jesus accepted and welcomed everyone. He served and healed first, then instructed and taught them on how to live. It seems that “evangelicals” just go around telling everyone else how to live rather than loving and serving first.
The world doesn’t need to be preached at. They simply need to be loved through their struggles and pain and sin.
Blessings,
Bret
If I were to try and narrow down “what went wrong”, I would make the following points.
Three men by the names of Jerry Fallwell, Pat Robertson, and Tim LaHaye got together and created the Christian Coalition. Though it was LaHaye’s idea, he (rightly) got Fallwell and Robertson to front it. Jerry Fallwell even went so far as to officially switch his church from being a fundamentalist church, to a Southern Baptist church, in an attempt to look a little more main stream and a little less extreme. Others were a part of this movement as well, but they all died off in huge scandals back in the 80’s. It was a sight to behold.
The Christian Coalition has one core characteristic that it has built its foundation on. Fear. Fear that we are going to allow the U.S. to become too worldly, and too much like Sodom and Gomorra and are, therefore, going to allow it to get to a place where God decides to destroy it. And why did God destroy these two cities? Well, according to the Christian Coalition, God destroyed Sodom and Gomorra because of homosexuality. What’s the problem with homosexuality? Well, in addition to God destroying cities because of it, homosexuality has also destroyed the family. As a matter of fact, homosexuals are, at this very moment, hanging out at Universities, recruiting people to join their club. As a matter of fact, evangelicals could learn a thing or two from the gay community concerning evangelism. They are awesome at it!
Americans are afraid. We’re afraid of everything. We’re afraid of somebody breaking into our homes and stealing all of our possessions, so we take out insurance. We’re afraid of somebody breaking into our homes and shooting us, so we keep guns at the ready. We’re afraid of another country pushing “the button”, so we keep over 7000 nuclear warheads armed and ready to go. The Christian Coalition didn’t create fear in America, but they definitely took advantage of it.
And one more thing, we are all sheep. We love big strong leaders. That’s why, when Bush climbed to the top of the rubble and uttered those famous words (they will all hear us soon), even the democrats stood up and cheered. So when you take a couple of strong leaders, who know how to play on our fears, you can do anything. Including getting every Christian in the country to vote a Christian out of office (Carter).
Now here’s the real shame. Those of us who aspire to greatness usually look around, find those who are great, and emulate them. So, when guys like Jerry Fallwell and Jimmy Swaggart took over the airwaves back in the 70’s and 80’s, there was only one thing for young (and even old) preachers to do; look, act, and preach exactly like them. After all, that’s what made them so popular! So suddenly, it wasn’t just a few television converts who were listening to these guys, it was nearly every Christian in America. And we ate it up!
Twenty years later and that kind of fundamentalist, fear founded theology, has crept into a large majority of the churches in America. It is only recently that some of us are beginning to have the courage to ask questions.
You asked if the word “evangelical” had been high jacked. The answer? Yeah, pretty much. The question now is, is it worth taking back? Part of me says no, let’s just move on. But the problem is that now the word “Christian” is in real danger of being high jacked as well. Where the outside world used to look on the word “evangelical” with disdain, they now look on the word “Christian” with the same disdain, and for the same exact reason. Are we really prepared to let the fundamentalists have that word as well???
Hi Bret,
I would completely agree with you. I think what's happened is that we have put truth and tolerance as two oppositional terms when in fact they could (and SHOULD) go together.
To be tolerant does not mean that we have to water down or compromise what we believe in - AT ALL!
So what happens, we embrace truth and INTOLERANCE... which turns us into the obnoxious bigots Bruckeridge is talking about.
Maybe we should shift our terminology to 'faithfulness' and 'humility'... ?
I completely agree - that if we are to serve, listen, think & pray before we speak, we could - possibly - shatter this overwhelming stereotype.
Steve
Hey Tim,
Have you read Barry Glassner's "The Culture of Fear?" It's a very interesting book which talks about this very issue.
Fear is an incredibly intoxicating - and thus controlling - substance.
Take for example the hoopla over The Da Vinci Code (coming out in theaters next week). On Friday night, I was in B & Noble and was SHOCKED to see how many cracking, whipping, dismantling, breaking, dissemating T.D.C. books we evangelicals have written on this subject!
What's with us? We CREATE our own demons based on the paranoia that something REALLY BAD is going to happen!
Guess what? It's a... dare I say it... book.
That's all.
A work of FICTION.
If Dan Brown has that much power... or that the gospel is that feeble, then I must have bought into the wrong message!
NO WAY - my rock-solid gospel is powerful, sturdy... and it ain't gonna get washed away by a little book and movie!
So why all the tail-spinning... this just makes evangelicals look reactionary - and pits us in the stereotype discussed by Bruckeridge.
Roosevelt said "We have nothing to fear but fear itself" - and Marilyn Manson has said, "One hates what one fears." (don't be hatin'!)
Maybe we should stop being afraid of something we don't need to be afraid of. It breeds a temperment of paranoia; and marginalizes both 'us' and 'them.'
Just a couple o' thoughts.
Steve
So the battle rages. Could it be that it's all in Gods' plan. What are we to do? We are powerless because our true faith has been highjacked by fearmongers.
How do I tell someone they are in danger of eternal death in hell lest they seek forgivness from the sacrificial lamb without sounding like a mid 19th century preacher?
Even those of us who seem to care about our identity sound similar to those who we accuse of dismantling the evangelical. "It was a sight to behold".
Frankly, it was sad. My heart broke. We have all fallen short. When one falls shouldn't we restore them gently? None of us are exempt from these types of attacks.
As a dad I felt Larrys' pain for his son. I also realize that our faith needs to be build on a firm foundation. This might just be where the wheat gets separated.
We need to stand firm. We will all need to have the steadfast faith in the coming days.
Bush and Cater are both redeemable.
Blue,
I thank you for identifying with my pain. My son is just now recovering. It is now more than a year later. I think Tim and Steve have spoken well about the fear factor. However, I don't believe we are powerless. I think that the problem is we have concentrated too much on telling people they are going to hell and not enough about the abundant life which Jesus wishes to give them.
Even though hell is real, the Gospel is the Good News that no matter how bad or good we think life is, we can know a better one with Jesus. Hell should probably be the last thing we talk about. Yes, there are times we might want to talk about hell, but that may well be after people understand that our salvation is about grace and have turned to Jesus. They may be much more appreciative of knowing where they are not going!
I agree and would like to point out that the only time Jesus talked about hell was in reference to the Pharisees. Hhhmmmm....
Ok, after reading these posts and really thinking about the subject matter...I can comment. This is something Phil (my husband) and I talk about constantly. Blind obedience to leaders and not to God's direction have played a big part in all of this. We (as the Church) have become lazy in our walks. Following the loudest and most popular...not always the best choice. But it makes us not have to think...I mean, yeah I could read this stuff for myself but why not when I can turn on at least 2 stations and have it interpreted for me? I find fellow officers falling for the "Christian" Coalition. Recomending books and bible studies that make my skin crawl and my spirit want to puke (sorry for the visual).
But what do we do about it now? I think just this! Having dialogue and pointing out (in love and constructive correction) the ignorance behind such hypocrisy.
The Word says that perfect love drives out fear...so we as a Church have disregarded the truth and have turned to natural tendencies. God save us from ourselves!
I think about the passage in 2 Chronicles 20 when King Jehosaphat was faced with a major problem (3 kingdoms coming against God's people). He turned to God for the answers. What happened to the kingdoms--they destroyed each other. At times I feel like the Church is the 3 kingdoms coming after God's people (being the lost and broken in the world). We can ultimately destroy each other if we don't get our act together and keep focusing on self preservation. May we seek His direction as we struggle with these infections in our own body!
Larry,
I agree with you on the fear factor. I also agree that the Good News should be the Good News. It shouldn't be wrapped in fear just to drag someone to the altar.
These monolithic evangelist that have been spoken of have helped satan in many ways. I do believe though that there are those who have sought forgiveness.
I am of the opinion that the kinds of christianity that causes churches to go out in the name of God and their so called religion to picket at the funerals of soldiers that have died in war are far worse for the evangelical movement than the likes of the Falwells and the Robertsons.
Those same types are the kind who go to extreems at abortion clinics and elsewhere.
Personally my opinion of the Christian Coalition is not very high. Along those same lines and maybe to open another can of worms is the Armys place in this political atmosphere. One of my critical issues with the Army is the fact that we have a lobbyist in DC. What's up with that? Is that the case?
Blue,
Am I crazy for thinking that the world knows that even WE don't support that church who is picketing soldiers funerals? After all, a large majority of the U.S. church supports the war.
I wonder what would happen if churches got together on a Sunday morning and went and picketed that church's Sunday morning service?
Nicole,
I would agree with your point. I think this has to do with a lack of intentionally critical (not criticizing) thinking.
What really concerns me is the emergence of this lazy, pop theology that forms opinions and best-selling WalMart books and flashy websites! So if we aren't learning how to theologically navigate this world, we end up following the latest, greatest pied piper - rather than being faithful to what is good, pure, & trustworthy.
While I'm completely in support of the cultivation of what I call "salvationismS" - this doesn't mean that any version of salvationism is OK.
I get seriously concerned that we have people who solely subscribe to being JUST charismatic- salvationists, or reformed- salvationists. or liberation- salvationists, or politically active/inactive salvationists (ad nauseum) depending on what TV channel you watch and what book publisher you only read from...
I'm not saying there's anything COMPLETELY wrong with any of them, but there is a problem when there is uncritical, blind allegiance to a sole perspective. None of these positions is completely right/or wrong - that's why this type of dialogue is so needed!
We need to dig deeper theological wells - My hope is that this will help create greater discernment when it comes to following glitzy leaders and flashy bandwagons!
Steve
Tim,
I don't think you are crazy at all. But this "church" causes fear in a different way. People do tend to over-generalize. The non-christian may lump the whole church together. I know we certainly don't support that "church" but with all the press they have recieved lately there is the possibility that many think we are all that way. In the same manner the world may think that all evangelicals, like those you have mentioned are alike including those not having access to the big media.
A picket in front of their church. Now that's a thought.
Fly over and I'll drive the rest of the way.
Tim and Blue,
Looks like a protest is planned. I am wondering if we would be better to try to convince people to hold back on giving donations to these people.
I do think that Tim you bring a valid point about power and fear. I wish we would live fearless Christian lives. The world would be blessed by our love, grace and charity
I was just thinking some evangelicals are in the BUSINESS of cultivating fear... because this REALLY helps funding - like you suggest, Larry - through donations etc.
For example, I just watched Coral Ridge's "The Da Vinci Delusion" (I think that one is their slogan - there have been so many I can't remember!).
After an hour of hyper-paranoid, author/speaker/professor commentated, de-bunking - James Kennedy comes on the air to suggest that donations be given to continue to fund this type of "defense of the faith" against the misinformation of the Dan Browns in the world.
Do I have a problem with what Brown is saying? Sure! ...but does that mean I create a profit off the fear that I am fanning?
Maybe if we stop being afraid we can funnel these donations into helping kids growing up in poverty, or addressing the AIDS pandemic in Africa... Maybe that's what Jesus would do...?
We have the possibility of changing the tide of this culture of fear. I think the better way to fight this isn't so much picketing (fighting fire with fire), but focusing on cultivating theologically discerning and culturally literate Christians.
Just some thoughts...
Steve
Bussey,
Maybe this is simplistic but don't you think that the Cross is defense enough. These evangelicals who create this type of panic seem to have forgotten the quite strenght that is gained from Gods' Son sacrificing Himself for the lost.
When I survey the Cross I feel the hope that it brings in my own life. Sure there may be some persuation in preaching hell fire but the Cross brings us the hope we all so desperately long for.
Just a thought.
Larry. I need/want to respond to appreciated previous comments about Jesus and Vietnam, but your "E" word blog slowed my review of previous comments and questions.
From someone like me, sort of in but "outside-of-the-box", can you or any of your readers explain the difference between "Fundamentalist" and "Evangelical"?
We also always hear "Christian Right-Wing". Is there any such thing as a "Christian Left-Wing"?
As a rather sophomoric sounding example of this "lump-them-all-together" language, I would say: "The right-wing christian conservatives, evangelicals and fundamentalists elected George Bush"
Would this be wrong or somehow mis-leading?
What are the definitions, semantic, or philosophical differences you and your fellow, for want of a better in good-faith term, "believer-bloggers", perceive them to be?
Sincere thanks, Jay Bee
John,
Actually, the evangelical movement has included the likes of Martin Luther King, Jr., Billy Graham and now Jim Wallis (read his book "God's Politics") and even the rock singer Bono. These were and are all people who fit the description of basic tenets outlined in my post. All of them, except Bono are life-long Democrats.
Evangelicalism really in my opinion is different from fundamentalist movement, while it would take several paragraphs in this blog to describe, you may want to read Brian McLaren's "Generous Orthodoxy" for a great differentiation.
I think Tim put it well that a few people hijacked the evangelical title and claimed it. Unfortunately, what we have in America, with most religions not only Christians, is a group think mentality. It responds to fear and selfishness. Interestingly, these are charecteristics that scripture speaks against, but are very ingrained in the fabric and nature of who we are.
I am not sure how we will break the cycle of fear-mongering and hateful rhetoric, other than by forums like this one where reasonable people can debate and discuss issues, without being labeled and move forward to something better for our country, but also the entire world.
I may not have answered your question, but I think if you read (in your honored retirement) those two books, you will get an idea of what I am speaking about.
By the way, give us a call.
I didn't know that Billy Graham was a democrat. Wow.
Hi Blue,
Amen to that!
I would COMPLETELY agree with this - the cross is powerful. The gospel is like the sharpest blade that can cut through doubt and disbelief.
To clarify - when I say 'gospel' - I mean this in a kerygmatic way - bearing witness to the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. That's powerful stuff which doesn't require our adding anything onto it.
Look at great chefs (I'm thinking of the show, 'Iron Chef'...
[they just did a GOAT CHEESE battle - yum! ...but on to more important things!]).
...A master chef understands that when you have a really great ingredient - THAT is what you need to showcase. You don't do too much with it - because THE CHOICE INGREDIENT SPEAKS FOR ITSELF... The chef's job is to simply interpret the ingredient within a regional cuisine context and create a path which points to, highlights, champions the ingredient.
Similarly, the gospel is our CHOICE ingredient. We can "taste and see that it's good." Our job isn't to bury it in a pile of other ingredients, fluff it up and make it sexy etc. etc. ...it's attractive on its' own.
Therefore, when we stick a pile of other 'stuff' around the gospel, all we do is DETRACT from the most important thing - that the GOSPEL IS REALLY GREAT - and that NOTHING compares to it!
So to respond in a round about way - I agree.
YES.
The cross - period.
When we get that right - and stand back, maybe the world will want to taste what they have been longing for all along.
Let's let the world "survey the wondrous cross" and experience complete satisfaction.
Steve
JayBee
Regarding the difference between evangelical and fundamentalist, I agree with Larry's recommendation - and would recommend a couple of additional books:
Nancy Murphey: Beyond Liberalism and Fundamentalism
Rodney Clapp's "Border Crossings" (ch.1)
Rob Webber's "The Younger Evangelicals"
Also, check out my blog paper on "Essentializing the Evangelical" for a couple of other recommendations of classic works.
Steve
One third of the "Six Pack" will soon be semi-reunited. In a manner of speaking.
Iron Chef reference - sweeet!!
Today's secret incredient.. "PIZZA DOUGH!!!"
Great post.
Got this from a class two days ago.
*I am Christian, not Jewish, because of Jesus.
*I am Protestant, not Catholic becuase of the primacy of Scripture.
*I am Evangelical because I believe it happens in an instant.
*I am Wesleyan because I believe faith in God is balanced with character and the proposition of cooperative grace. (God and I in partnership.)
Larry. Another ego-feeder for you: Another great post! :) I'm looking forward to sharing some thoughts on your very thought provoking post of May 1, but I can't do it right now.....much too much to digest from the "E" word post. And I can't sleep with so many troubling issues in my head....Sorry for the length ahead of time.
I'd rather neither you nor Steve take this personally, but right now I can't get into reading all of the books you two have recommended. Steve, I did, however, go to your comprehensive blog, but to no avail for me in this discussion.
You-all bloggers here are "insiders" and have a good feel for the topics and current state of Army discussions/argument/debate. You immediately understand the finer lines of demarcation better than I do, and buzz words immediately speak volumes that I don't fully "hear".
Larry, you said that it would take paragraphs to differentiate between fundamentalists and evangelicals. Knowing you as I do, I DO know that you are no stranger to paragraphs and are not necessarily loath to employ them :)
However, I think I am, more in the category that Blue mentioned: "People tend to overgeneralize." But I'd like to be shown where and how I'm wrong. I think Brueridge makes some valid points about evangelicals.
Some of you are concerned about "Evangelical" being high-jacked, and maybe even "Christian". And in my mind, even with my SA background and my current somewhat limited involvement, I would say that that is now a real-time reality. I see little difference between the Moral Majority, fundamentalists, evangelicals, Christians, the Christian Coalition, Pat Robertson (who snookered SO many well-meaning Christians into really thinking that loose cannon was presidential fodder, so to speak), Jim Baker, Jimmy Swaggert, Jerry Falwell, and even Dobson who has recently been threatening the GOP to pay heed to the Conservative Christians, etc, "or else". So much for separation of church and state.
Billy Graham may be a Democrat, although I didn't know that. Goodness knows, being in North Carolina, we hear about Billy all the time. To include his near $450,000+ annual salary (before perks). Billy's the one who spoke ill of the Jews while praying with Nixon during the never-ending Vietnam war. He also coached the Bush, "Mission Accomplished", Boy ostensibly on faith based issues. Billy has not spoken out against the current war, or any other war that I'm aware of. Martin Luther King would have, Bono has.
Tim may have it right that "A large majority of US churches support the war." That in itself should be troubling to people who claim to speak for and worship Jesus as the Prince of Peace.....
With Bush having an approval rating of about 29% one wonders what people approve of; or if they are aware of the litany of lies and errors - of ommission and comissions - and misrepresentations and un-American (if not in-human) activities he has engaged in, thus tarnishing the reputation of the US around the world using the power of fear and righteous rights. (The BBC has an excellent documentary called: "The Politics of Fear")
"Turn the other cheek? Forgive your neighbor? Love your neighbor as yourself? Not on My watch baby, them is just words for others to abide by."
Not only that, but since the Christian right has taken such brazen credit for re-electing him, is it any wonder that so many Muslims see our actions in Iraq as us vs them (Christians)(Remember "Crusade"?)
Maybe the flag-waving, testosterone ladden, pro-war clique needs to see first-hand, a boy's face blown off, still iving, bone and meat exposed. I have. Maybe they need to have the sweat pouring off their brow and see a friend die (I have) before they ask, "Where is Christ's church, why are they not speaking, screaming out, at the useless carnage and waste of young life?
Maybe a young boy's family who has just seen their 10 year old son in Darfur tossed live into a blazing bonfire, would be moved to ask, "Where is the Church, with all it's internal fissions and fusions and fussings, and fighting?
Dare they take a united raucous wail for action and justice?
And I think the Army has more than one lobbyist in Washington. To whom would he/she report to? How many officers know what is being lobbied for? Who makes up that agenda? Who sees it? Do the rank and file SA soldiers ever hear of such Washington lobbying? What has been sought and/or accomplished? Where does the salary come from? How much is it? What are the attendant perks?
I am not a Democrat, but where are the Republicans looking out for those who Jesus ministered to and for, and the religious right(call them the Moral Majority, Fox news, the Christian Coalition, Fundamentalists, Christians or even Evangelicals), when it comes to fighting for a raise in the minimum wage, health care for over 40 million uninsured US citizens, demanding that foreign textile workers in Malaysia, at least, are given equal benefits of our labor laws and doing away with the modern sweat shops that William Booth abhored.
And how many high-priced Management lawyers has the Army had on the payroll for advisement on how to keep unions out of the Army? Some of you may be too young to have heard some of those stories and facts, but I dare say they are still present in one form or another. (Like equal rights: equal pay for equal work; do spousal women work? For peanuts, pride or just plain dedicated pastoral professionalism?)
And some of you were very prescient making comments on who really represents the Army out in the field as employees and service-givers that the Army gets/takes credit for. It certainly is not the majority of the Army's soldiers, although if you can convince me otherwise, please go for it. Maybe it started when we began to pay folk to ring bells on the kettles because of our own "manpower" shortage. And now into social work and on and on and on.... (No Urban Planning though, we don't do dat!)
And finally, for those still reading, I couldn't get this Sunday School chorus out of my mind the other day:
Dare to be a Daniel
Dare to stand alone,
Dare to have a purpose firm,
And DARE to make it known....
Maybe it's self-validating back-patting to have lofty Mission Statements issued (to whom? All officers? Local officers? Corps soldiers?), but another to put them into serious, practical, meaningful practice.
I imagine doing so would surely hit the Army somewhere in the pocketbook, and money usually wins out over morality...
PS Thank you SO much Larry for goading me into the blogging world; I love the mental turmoil and sleepless nights.... :) It's now almost 3AM and I have to get ready to do nothing tomorrow :) (yeah, that's close!)
Dear Mr Lt.Col GS Larry Ashcraft, Generalissimo-in-Waiting,
I wondered why I didn't hear nada from you or any of your fellow addicted bloggers, who may have suffered through my rather lengthy-but in good-faith- missive last night.
Then I got word that today was the semi-"puff-of-white-smoke-day-in-The-SA-Life" for the Eastern Tewrritory. Congratulations seem to be in order for you and some of your blogging cohorts; possibly for you, and some of your fellow addicted bloggers, sympathies should be also be extended!
Who knows; it's a time of change.
Your blogs and those associates who participate on their own and with you are an IMPORTANT part of the evolving church and Army.
May Pax Vobiscum go with you and all others who are facing such challenging changes and transitions.....
And I PROMISE never to write as long again (unless someone refused to read the entire sorry "venting-observing serious thoughts of mine :)
jay bee
Check out this dude's definition of the "E" word: http://realitycubed.blogspot.com/
Post a Comment
<< Home