The Religious Left
The Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty has, as it’s quick mission statement:
The Mission of the Acton Institute is to promote a free and virtuous society characterized by individual liberty and sustained by religious principles.
Among their web site’s many features is the Acton PowerBlog, and a podcast of the various lectures and radio appearances of Acton staff as well as their recently-started "Radio Free Acton" with a bit more production value (hosted by an old blogging friend of mine, Marc VanderMaas).
Recently in the podcast stream was a talk by Acton President Rev. Robert Sirico entitled "The Rise (And Eventual Downfall) of the New Religious Left". It is a 35 minute speech in which Rev. Sirico covers the fallacies of the Religious Left by noting history, scripture, and church writings. He particularly notes the Left’s penchant for increasing the power of government (which history shows never ends well) in the name of caring, when the role of the church in society is to change hearts and allow human society to come naturally along.
I’d like to suggest this quick listen to all my SCO comrades, and those, both on the right and the left, who would like to hear a well-reasoned examination of the role of government in Christian charity. (The page linked above has an embedded audio player.)
Filed under: Christianity • Doug • Economics & Taxes • Government • Politics • Religion
Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!
Comrades, eh?
I’ll give it a listen. In the meantime, I always have to roll my eyes just a bit when this kind of thing is mentioned:
He particularly notes the Left’s penchant for increasing the power of government (which history shows never ends well) in the name of caring
When it is the Republican (and more conservative) presidencies that have given us the biggest gov’t – grossly larger – over the last few decades, and they have done so by spending obscene amounts of money on the military and related unhealthy growth items and by cutting taxes at the same time.
And I find it interesting that they who don’t trust gov’t to spend a relatively little amount of money on programs like welfare and prison rehabilitation DO trust the gov’t with massive WMD and military spending.
It boggles the mind.
Now I’ll go listen to the program.
As I understood the fella, here are the Seven Identifiers of Left Wing Christians:
1. Tendency to believe the Kingdom of God is not primarily eschatological, but can/should be achieved here and now
2. Loathing of the economically successful – wealth is generally unjustly acquired, especially in the Market
3. A conviction that the cause of material inequity is primarily due to injustice
4. A reliable bias against commerce, merchant class, marketing tools, etc
5. A bias in favor of gov’t programs that “do good” for others – especially those in need and a preference for policy solutions over individual/market efforts
6. A judgment that earthly well-being is coming ahead?
7. An attachment to the idea that the natural environment is a source of moral light in a world darkened by the actions of humanity
He identifies Jim Wallis, Ron Sider and Tony Campolo as some of the prominent spokespersons for this view, along with some Liberation Theologians (Gutierrez, Kung)
He pointed out the seventh trait (environmentalism) believes ultimately that the jungle is better than the garden (which he went on to state was putting these in direct opposition to God’s command to toil the land, and that these Leftists “demand that humans live in extreme material deprivation and leave nature along and pristine…”
He stated that he is not saying that concern for the environment = heresy, but rather, “The solutions for specific environmental problems are always at hand… Coming NOT through the curbing of the market or restrictions on rights of private property, but by firming up property rights and enforcing strict liability laws.”
The Left, he says, “draws from a different source” than orthodox Christians (he said, pointing to some 2nd century Gnostic position, or something similar that was not Christian).
Does that look like a fair summation of most of his points?
If that’s a fair summation of at least his beginning points (where I took most of my notes), I’d suggest that it makes for an interesting starting point for conversation.
He is, from my point of view, in the right ballpark for where many of us are on the “Christian Left,” but he’s also misconstrued some very important angles.
One difficulty in having this sort of discussion is that there is no uniform Christian Left, just as there’s no uniform Christian Right. I can only speak for myself, my church and my brother and sister Christians with whom I’m familiar. Hundreds of people, but certainly nowhere near a large percentage of the Christian Left.
Having said that, my problem with his points are that they take reality and then caricaturize us.
For instance, I’d reframe his first point to: “We have tendency to believe the Kingdom of God is primarily about how we live here and now, in addition to the everlasting glory.” As anabaptist writer Art Gish says, “If we long for that day by and by when there is no poverty, where we live in peace with one another, where there is no hatred, then why would we not begin to live that now?” (or words to that effect.)
On his second point, I’d just suggest it’s ridiculous to suggest we “loathe” anyone. We do think the bible consistently teaches that wealth has a great tendency to be a trap. But we think this because we are striving to be faithful to the words of the Bible, not because we’re trying to justify Marxism.
On the larger economic/gov’t policy thinking, I’d like to suggest these clarifications:
1. We don’t especially trust gov’t and we certainly trust gov’t LESS than most on the Right (religious or otherwise). We don’t trust them to have a huge military, to spy on us, to give benefits to big corporations, to have un- or under-supervised campaign giving.
2. He suggests in his words that the Right has a WHOLE lot more trust in corporations than we do. If he supposes we trust gov’t too much, then it should probably be countered that he trusts corporations too much.
Them’s my initial thoughts.
Anyone else?
I think you’ve fairly summed up his points made at the start. Wish there was a transcript, but you’ve accurately hit his main topics.
Agreed that there is no uniform block of Christians, left or right. But as he’s dealing with the most popular of the left’s writers (notably Jim Wallis, whom he quotes later on), I think he’s aiming at the more largely-held ideas. Some generalizing, yes, but looking at the largest target currently.
I would agree with Art Gish that we should begin to live the way we will be in heaven right now. If I may put words in his mouth, I think Rev. Sirico would agree, too. However, the means to that end is, I think, the main point of contention.
I, too, agree that wealth can be a lure away from God, but wealth in and of itself isn’t evil. However, Jim Wallis consistently misrepresents economic policy vis a vis the rich and I can see this breeding contempt very easily. See here for quotes (search for "wealth") that include 2 about the "only domestic social policy" being tax cuts for the rich. The tax cuts also incredibly helped middle class folks like myself, but I’m not jealous that rich folks, who paid more absolute dollars in taxes, got more absolute dollars back. Here’s a New York Time editorial (search for "wealth" again), where Wallis seems blind to the middle class. Jim seems to be fomenting that by misrepresenting it, and one shouldn’t be surprised that it exists. I’m glad you’ve not seen that yourself.
I’ll grant you loathing may be overly strong, but I wonder if Dick Gephardt considers himself religious. If so then his quote about the rich being "winner’s of life’s lottery", as though there was no hard work involved (though it is in the vast majority of cases), does the same thing and displays to me quite a bit more than a simple wariness. Loathing?
But I find it interesting that the Religious Left uses commands that Jesus gave to us individually and extrapolate it to say that we must, therefore, use the force of government to require everyone to act morally in a situation where the action, charity, by its nature, must be voluntary. For a group you say trusts government less than those on the Right, you seem to trust it with enough power to distribute wealth by fiat. That’s a pretty powerful tiger you think can be tamed. The reference to the military here is a non sequitur, since that is a historical role of government; to protect itself and its citizens. The question of the size of that military is a separate issue which I won’t take up now (we’ve had that discussion, you and I, before), but the role of economic equalizer is not one that has much historical precedence, and where it has existed it has failed miserably, making everyone equally destitute in time (except that it also enriches the corrupt, thus encouraging corruption).
Instead, the buying and selling among people, freely allowed and properly governed, has shown much more ability to free more people from poverty. This is as much about the mom & pop store and the sole proprietor — kind of the "smaller government" idea in the economic sector — as the Wal-Marts of the world. And as Rev. Sirico noted, say what you want about those big corporations; people line up when the doors open in their country. This has great potential to lift people up from out of poverty with work, not handouts; an ethic that the Proverbs writer lauds.
But the Left decries this because they find the whole profit motive suspect. Yet without that profit motive, that big, international corporation wouldn’t be there at all, and instead the poor are dependent on aid, which dehumanizes them, doesn’t do nearly as much to lift them out of their situation, and in some cases actually hinders them from working their way out of it.
Now, in both cases — big government and big corporations — regulation, checks and balances need to be instituted, and Rev. Sirico notes this as well. Sinful man will overstep his boundaries, no doubt. But a smaller government, doing only what it does best, with less money flowing through it, and less opportunity for the corrupting influence of large companies, would allow entrepreneurship to flourish. That’s what lifts the poor, as history show time and time again.
Thanks for sharing this one, Doug. It was worth it just to hear him reference Tony Campolo as a Christian Don Rickles!
On a serious note, I think the Christian Right should take note that we have been lax in our concern for those less fortunate (generally speaking).
The “religious right” church I grew up in, the Salvation Army, would certainly be a large exception to that. However, just because a church doesn’t have an official arm that works in that area specifically, doesn’t mean its influence isn’t being felt.
While our current church is a major sponsor of a local food co-op, and takes a monthly collection for those in need in our congregation, teaching on proper handling of finances would, I think, count among those ways of helping the poor. Part of the Crown Financial Ministry course that is taught centers on the purpose of financial freedom, not just getting debt-free. The purpose is to get the individual involved in more giving, inside and (as importantly) outside the church. That kind of giving, of time and money, doesn’t get reported much, or if it does it’s credited to the organization putting that time and money to use; not the church itself.
This is, again, an individual approach to charity that can get easily ignored by those trying to measure such things, unintentional as that ignoring may be. As I noted here, studies show that the Right actually gives more than the Left, so I think that the stereotypes are giving conservatives — individuals and churches — a bum rap.