I don't know much about author Anne Rice. I know that she once wrote dark and violent books (most famously, Interview with the Vampire). I know that a while back she became a follower of Jesus and began writing fictional books about the boyhood of Christ. I know that she's (for these and other reasons) quite controversial.
Here's another log to add to the fire of controversy: she's voting for Hillary.
That fact is not the point of this post, though...
What I find most fascinating about this whole situation has to do with the statement about this on her website. It's worth reading, regardless of your feelings about her or Hillary.
This section in particular is worth pondering:
Though I deeply respect those who disagree with me, I believe, for a variety of reasons, that the Democratic Party best reflects the values I hold based on the Gospels. Those values are most intensely expressed for me in the Gospel of Matthew, but they are expressed in all the gospels. Those values involve feeding the hungry, giving drink to the thirsty, clothing the naked, visiting those in prison, and above all, loving one’s neighbors and loving one’s enemies.
First, I find it very typical of the emerging movement to say that her Christian values are based upon the Gospel accounts, not the whole Bible. Please note, I have no idea if Anne Rice even knows about the emerging church or not, but this paragraph she wrote could easily have been penned by McLaren or McKnight or otherwise.
It comes down to the "living the life of Jesus" motif so common in emerging circles. A former professor of mine wrote about this over at his blog [you'll have to scroll down to the post entitled "Living the Life of Jesus..."]. While I'm sure that this goal (living as Christ lived) is noble, I'm not sure it's quite the right spin we need on our daily lives. He was, after all, God incarnate. I am not. Moreover, I'm not sure we should be neglecting the other 62 books of the Bible in preferential treatment for the four Gospels.
Also interesting in Anne's paragraph: she thinks the Democrat Party is better able to address the social justice concerns that she carries as a Christian. But let's back up a step or two. Do you believe that the best way to act upon these concerns is through the auspices of the federal government? Let me put it another (more loaded) way: As a follower of Christ, am I willing to let the church off the hook on social issues and say our main/only responsibility is to merely pay the appropriate tax? I guess I'm just not that trusting of bureaucracy...
So I guess this is another reason why I'll call myself emerging-friendly, but not emerging: I'm persuaded that Christ's followers must address the very real social justice issues facing our communities, but I'm not personally persuaded that the government is the best way to do so. Let's roll up our sleeves and get dirty, not just send off our tax check.
It's rather like missions, in a way. It's much easier for people to send money to overseas missions than it is for them to engage their own community with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For some (not all), I fear that sending money overseas is a way of relieving guilt. In perhaps the same way, it's much easier to get "outraged" about poverty (for example) and feel better about yourself by voting for the party that will try to tax the situation away than to actually (again, for example) volunteer at a soup kitchen or give money directly to the local food bank.
Anyway, Anne is to be commended for recognizing that politics and religion not only can, but must mix. I just disagree with her as to how.
Hatushili
Monday, August 20, 2007
Emerging Democrats
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
When I read your post "What is a social conservative", I was so impressed. You hit the nail on the head of how I have been feeling and voting as a Christian for years - looking at all the important issues in a balanced fashion. This is why I am now shocked to read your lastest post criticizing Anne Rice for seemingly following your exact advice.
re: anonymous - First, thanks for the compliment on my social conservative post. I'm glad it encouraged you.
With regard to Anne Rice's politics, I think you've missed my point. I agree with Anne that there are hugely pressing issues facing humanity. I agree with her belief that we must allow our faith to inform our voting.
My point is simply that I don't think government should be the primary agent for social action. The Democrat Party (and Anne, apparently) disagrees with me.
If you found me criticizing "looking at all the important issues in a balanced fashion", I think I failed to be as clear as I should have.
Incidentally, please don't think I'm a die-hard Bush Republican. I'm not. While I tend to vote Republican, I lean Libertarian in many ways, Green in a few, and Constitutionalist in others. [Oh, how I (and apparently Anne) wish we had more than merely these two entrenched parties!]
Anyway, my fundamental disagreement with Anne is in philosophy of social action: she's coming down on the side of "government can do it best", I'm simply not.
Does that make sense, or do you still think I'm out of line?
Hatushili
PS: You're welcome to stay anonymous, but I'd personally rather know who it is I'm talking to.
In light of this discussion, I just stumbled across an excellent post over at the Resurgence. He addresses exactly what I'm talking about. Read it here.
Hatushili
I'm not so sure that democrats (or anyone)would claim that "government can do it best", only that government needs to play a vital role in a multi-pronged attack against social injustice in this country and abroad. Clearly churches, non-profits, private industries, and individual efforts are equally important. At this point in time 50% of the infants born in this country are served by WIC and 35% of all children birth to age 18 are on Medicaid. Even still, there are huge gaps in servives where the private sector does step in. The number one way to escape poverty is through higher education. Over 60% of college students receive some form of federal financial aid. I believe less than 5% of all educational assistance is through the private sector. Another huge stepping stone out of poverty has traditionally been home ownership. FHA loans have allowed many Americans the ability to purchase a home that could not otherwise have done so. This is a good example of where the private sector has stepped up and actually is taking over this function, though I beleive the motives of these companies lie more in making profit than in combatting poverty! Not that there is necessarily anything wrong with making a profit. Foreign aid is necessary not only for the obvious humanitarian reasons, but for diplomatic ones as well. Even the poorest of Americans have a better standard of living than about 80% of the rest of the world's population (as seen in the video clip you linked). If the private sector is capable of putting government assistance out of business, I would welcome the change, but I frankly don't see that actually happening. Before pulling the rug, ask yourself if you or anyone you love has ever benefited from government assistance. Were the same level of servives available through the private sector that could have been taken advantage of instead?
Anyway, I guess I felt compelled to comment because I have heard many Christians be critical of the Democratic party (often for good reasons), but I have never heard them use the reason for their dislike as being the party's desire to help the poor. That is a new one!
Might I suggest the book "Bridges out of Poverty" by Ruby Payne. It is a non-religious, non-political examination of poverty in America.
Barbara
Barbara, thanks for continuing this conversation - I appreciate your input.
While the list of facts and figures you provide seem to paint a picture of the need for big government, I fear we're talking past one another. It is my contention that big government does all of those things right now because it has taken an ever-increasing portion of the taxpayer's dollar to do for her what she could (likely) do for herself (especially if she had some of those tax dollars back!).
For example, you mentioned the WIC program. My children were on the program for a few years. At first, it's probably safe to say that we truly needed the help. [Though again, I have to wonder if my tax payments weren't so high if that would be true. But that's not my point for the moment.] My point is that our income soon outpaced our legitimate need for the program ... but we still qualified. I then discovered that since I had (at the time) five children I could be making roughly $50,000 per year and still qualify. In other words, the government has decided to play along with the consumerist/materialist culture. The standard is set so low that many who could afford groceries if they simply cancelled their cable TV service are still on the government dole. I could not, in good conscience, continue to take this hand-out.
Or take the child Medicaid situation. Surely government assistance is one way of dealing with the health care problem. But aren't there other equally valid alternatives that do not require such a big government? I think there are, but our current culture largely prohibits even asking such a question.
I'll not continue to debate the fine points - I think you see where I'm coming from. For every big government "success" story, I could raise just as many "horror" stories of big government actually discouraging civic involvement and charitible giving, of welfare recipients who've learned to "work" the system, etc...
I'm not saying I'm sure I'm right on this, nor am I saying I'm sure you're wrong. I'm saying that my personal philosophy of good works, as a Christian, is rooted in individual responsibility. I don't think government is evil, and you've certainly mischaracterized my position if you think I'm criticizing Democrats for desiring to help the poor.
Most Christians desire to help the poor. We just disagree with the best way to accomplish the task. The Democratic party (by and large) believes that government programs are the best (though certainly not the primary) way of accomplishing the task. I (along with Republicans, many Libertarians and Constitutionalists) believe free markets and individual responsibility is the best way to accomplish the task.
Therefore, as a follower of Jesus I have to bear individual responsibility for a) my own family and to the extent possible b) those most needy around and about me. This is why (in part) we keep chickens, burn wood for heat, don't have cable TV, etc...
Basically, Barbara, you and I simply disagree on the "how" of combatting the pressing social issues of our day, not the "why" or the "if". I respect your position, and encourage you - as a Christ-follower - to vote in the way you feel best helps accomplish God's purposes here on earth. I encourage Anne to do the same. I will do likewise.
Neither the Democrat nor the Republcian party is the more "Christian" party, frankly. There's room for vigorous debate on both sides. But for the moment I'd rather be doing what I can to help advance the Missio Dei as much as I can. I trust you feel the same.
Hatushili
PS: I'm familiar with Ruby Payne's work, and I appreciate you bringing it up. It truly is one of the touchstone books on the issue.
Post a Comment