I'd be willing to wager money that empirical studies could demonstrate that the biggest single predictor of whether a person believes in global warming, considers him or herself to be a feminist and is sympathetic to Marxism is their social location, especially their class.
Now, in North America we supposedly have no class structure and it is true that our's is not as rigid or based on birth as Europe's is, but we definitely have a class structure. To move from the working or lower middle class into the upper middle class is relatively easy in our society, which speaks well for our society. But, ironically, the one thing you need to make that transition is rage. You must be angry at your old class in order to demonstrate that you belong in your new class. So you must angrily reject anything associated with the lower classes in the minds of the upper middle class in order to show that you belong in the upper middle class. You must despise the society that enables easy class mobility in order to claim class mobility. Confused yet? If not, you don't understand what is going on.
Marxism, Feminism and Environmentalism all are upper middle class movements which presume to speak for the masses even though the masses are stubbornly resistant to the beliefs and values of the upper middle class. School boards in Kansas insist on questioning evolution, Texas puts good things about Ronald Reagan into school textbooks, the Senator from Oklahoma presumes to question global warming alarmism. Will it never end? When will the ignorant masses admit that their betters know what is good for them? Abstinence based sex education, anti-abortion views, a stubborn clinging to guns and religion - the fact that the masses refuse to toe the politically correct line leads to rage in the media and academic coastal elites and so the price of admission to the club becomes the willingness to join in the rage against the working classes.
I think that this reality explains why young Evangelicals are often attracted to liberal theology, leftist politics and progressive social movements. It is not a matter of logic or following the evidence; Marxism has been discredited long ago, Feminism is rejected by most women and Environmentalism is more of a tool to fight capitalism than a serious concern for the land, the water and the air. So why are young Evangelicals attracted to leftist causes?
The old joke about where liberals come from has two liberal Anglican bishops talking about the future. One says to the other: "You know, we liberal Anglicans never convert anybody and we don't have enough babies to keep up the numbers, so where will liberal Anglicans come from in the future?" The other bishop laughs and says: "Why, where they have always come from . . . from the ranks of the Evangelicals!"
This joke is funny because it is so true; the puzzle is why Evangelicals would sign up for a ride on the Titanic. I guess it must be because all the cool people are taking that ship and the ticket prices make it something only those of a certain class can afford.
Liberal theology is intellectually bankrupt, ethically incoherent and culturally accommodated. Whatever appeal it has could not possibly have anything to do with truth, justice or the Bible. I guess it must be a class thing.
Audit Services in the UAE – Dubai
11 hours ago
10 comments:
Interesting post. I largely agree with the notion that left wing views are not rooted in a serious and fair consideration of the issues and arguments. At least, I find the attempted justifications for such views to be largely unconvincing and they often seem to me to rely on distortions of fact and caricatures of opposing views and the like. I think that a desire to be thought cool and to be accepted by the cultural gatekeepers is one of the reasons that many people, including evangelicals, adopt left wing views. I believe this, in part, because I have felt the pull myself.
I think, however, there are other possible reasons as well, such as youthful idealism or rebellion, or a genuine belief, whether right or wrong, that left wing solutions really work. I also think that for many youth who are raised in conservative evangelicalism they do correctly percieve problems with the evangelical right and then react by swinging to the other extreme, which is, to my mind, an unfortunate evangelical tendency.
Gordon,
Thanks for your comments; just one question: Could you explain what you mean by "problems with the Evangelical right"? The reason I ask is that I used to make that kind of comment all the time, but now I've become very aware that people interpret what I've said according to their own grid and take me to mean a lot of things I never meant at all. So I have stopped making vague comments about the failings of conservative Evangelicals.
I can mentions specific issues where I think there are shortcomings among Evangelicals. But now I think that much of what others count as shortcomings are actually strengths in my mind.
I am also aware of the problem that on many issues what used to be moderate or mainstream Evangelicalism has now become perceived as "right wing" because the whole spectrum has shifted leftward. So I find it necessary to be careful with this kind of language.
Dr. Carter,
Thanks for asking for the clarification. I agree about the general shift leftward and that many things have become perceived as extreme right wing that shouldn't be. Speaking from my own experience, a few examples of what I am referring to would be things like excessive Americanism and confusing America with the kingdom of God (which is not the same thing to me as a healthy love of country); a sometimes angry, militant culture wars mindset; a sometimes extremely defensive and fearful posture towards culture and the life of the mind in general that tends to throw out the baby with the bathwater. I grew up in conservative evangelicalism (and from the age of 13, my family has lived 30 minutes away from Lynchburg, VA and Jerry Falwell's Liberty University) and those would be a few things that I've experienced there. I feel like there are probably some others, but those are what comes to mind on the spur of the moment. Hope that helps to clarify some things.
I'd be curious about your thoughts on the specific things I mentioned here.
Gordon,
The Left continuously accuses Evangelicals of thinking that America is the kingdom of God, but I don't see it. Many Evangelicals, like many other Americans including Catholics, Mormans, agnostics, deists, etc. think America holds together the principles of individual freedom and equality of opportunity better than most other nations and I can't see what is wrong with that. European social democracy is not more just or more free, in my opinion, and it is the only competitor. Russia, China, the Muslim world, Africa, Latin America - where is there more prosperity, a larger middle class, more political freedom, more religious freedom? I don't see it.
Ask yourself this: would you rather that Country X became more like America or would you rather than America became more like Country X. How many countries go in each category? I'm not an American, I'm just trying to be objective about this. America is better, no matter what Noam Chomsky and his ilk think. They are either insane or evil to view America as the source of all the evil in the world.
As for caring for the life of the mind, maybe you should cut Jerry Falwell a bit of slack. After all, he founded a university for heaven's sake. He could have done a lot of other things. If premillennial eschatology is supposed to warp you the way his is, how do you explain his undertaking a 100 year long project to contribute to the culture?
The Left continually tells us we are angry. As a rule of thumb, they generally accuse of whatever they themselves are guilty of. Ronald Reagan was a happy warrior. Ask yourself, who is angry: Sarah Palin or Jeremiah Wright? Robert George or Michel Foucault? C. S. Lewis or Richard Dawkins? I just don't accept this caricature of conservatives as angry, except when justifiable anger is called for. In fact, not to get angry over injustice, racism and murder is to be warped. So why is the Left so apathetic about Hamas and Iran?
One more point on the life of the mind. Does anyone really think that the warmed over Marxism of Liberation Theology is superior to the philosophy and theology of John Paul II and Benedict XVI? Is the theology of Katherine Jeffort Schore, Gene Robinson and John Spong superior to that of John Webster, John R. W. Stott and J. I. Packer? Where is good history of religion being done today? (Mark Noll, George Marseden) How about philosophy of religion? (Alvin Plantinga) Where is a truly liberal education being offered if not in conservative colleges?
I could go on an on. I think most stereotypes of Evangelicals and conservatives are tired, worn-out and over done. Every movement has its weak links, but overall I just don't find Evangelicalism to jutify the leftist rhetorical lynching.
I agree with you that evangelicalism does not deserve the "leftist rhetorical lynching." Nor do I feel that anything that I have said indicates that I do, your response to my last comment notwithstanding.
Gordon.
I'm sorry if you thought i was referring to you. I was not. I was referring to the way that Evangelicalism is attacked by others - mostly non-Evangelicals, but sometimes some on the left of Evangelicalism. I thought you were asking about these attacks in general. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I respect your fair minded comments a lot.
Dr. Carter,
Thanks for clarifying. It seems to me we are largely, if not completely, on the same page. My thought is that the leftist caricatures and dismissals of conservative evangelicals are frequently unfair and unwarranted, and typically overblown but that sometimes there is a grain of truth in them that we should pay attention to. This is what I was alluding to with the specific examples I gave in my comment and I feel like I have seen these things first hand at times.
I sometimes feel like I am perpetually in the uncomfortable position of not quite fitting in anywhere, or of never quite fully agreeing with whomever I happen to be keeping company at the moment.
You mentioned that you could think of specific issues where you believe there are shortcomings among evangelicals. I would be curious to hear what these are.
Gordon,
If pressed to name the top three problems we Evangelicals face, I would have to say:
1. Worship - It seems a shame that the Anglicans are tossing the 1642 Book of Common Prayer into the garbage. What a treasure! Our worship is fragmented, not well thought out and human experience centered all too often. Many worship songs are banal and the repetition is boring. We need to rediscover the riches of the historic liturgy. One branch of Evangelicalism that does better than most is the Reformed.
2. Insecurity leading to intellectual conformism to the fads of the age. We are too worried about being labeled fundamentalists and so we cravenly submit to outrageously anti-intellectual fads in order to fit in. We need to develop our own intellectual tradition built on the Augustinian-Thomist metaphysics and cease worrying about riding the waves. Liberation theology was THE BIG THING when I was doing my doctorate and Bultmann-Tillich was THE BIG THING when I was in college & seminary. That stuff is now old-fashioned and regarded as a dead end. So we need fewer fads and more depth. We need systematic theology. Is the Evangelical Left listening?
3. Evangelicals are losing their clear focus on the message of the Gospel as one of sin and salvation for everyone who believes in Christ. We are increasingly basing our understanding of ministry on secular, non-Christian theories. I recently checked the textbooks in the Bookstore for the D.Min. program and they were all (100%) on leadership and management. Secular psychology is increasingly the basis of our counseling ministry. Secular sociology is increasingly the basis of our outreach programs. Gospel proclamation is increasingly replaced by leftist politics.
These seem to me to be some of our weaknesses. I do not think that our commitment to preach the Gospel of salvation to the whole world, however, is a weakness as some apparently do.
Post a Comment