Over the past couple of months this blog has been primarily focused on two reoccurring themes: how we read the Bible and making sense of the miraculous. I didn’t plan it that way, per se, but it just kept coming up – and since I love those two topics, I went with it.
Now I want to change gears and do something a little more intentional. First, let me set it up.
There are several things happening in our culture that are coming together in an alarming way. The arenas of overlap include:
- Science
- Religion
- Politics
- Sexuality
The recent political backlash against women’s health, insurance coverage, and reproductive rights is fueled by a religious backlash. This is why it is no coincidence that controversy has flared up in politics around Rush Limbaugh and Rick Santorum – and in religion with Marc Driscoll and John Piper. Both sets of controversy are coming from the same place … they just play out in different arenas.
This past week I read two news stories that illustrate the same:
Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) argued that his belief that global warming is a hoax is biblically inspired. You can read the article here.
Well actually the Genesis 8:22 that I use in there is that “as long as the earth remains there will be springtime and harvest, cold and heat, winter and summer, day and night.” My point is, God’s still up there. The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous. – Sen. James Inhofe
The second story had to do with a school assembly in Iowa that turned ugly. It was supposed to be an anti-bullying presentation by a rock band that became anti-gay and anti-abortion. You can read the story here.
I saw the headline and thought to myself “I will guarantee you that the band was ‘christian’.” Turns out I was right! But let me ask you: how did I know? Because in the current arena there are 2 telltale signs:
- Christians have become 2 issue voters. Those two issues are homosexuality and abortion. Over the last 30 years of the Religious Right the American Church has been reduced to a caricature.
- The only way that a group who was brought in to talk about anti-bullying would end up ranting against gays and abortion was if they believed that they were working for a BIGGER truth and could therefor dishonor the initial intent of their invitation. What other group would take the anti-bully opportunity and change direction like that?
We are in an election year so this in only going to get more pronounced.
There are two other factors in my change of season
As you may know, I consider myself a Contextual Theologian (vs. philosophical, systematic, historical, etc). Well, the reality that has been dawning on me is that our context is one dominated by capitalism, global consumerism, post-Cold War imperialism and technology. If I ignore those realities as a theologian then I am doing a dis-service to the Church and to my generation.
It is irresponsible to do theology in the 21st century and not address economics, consumerism (our true global religion), politics, and ecology.
For this project I have chosen a conversation partner. I work best in dialogue and Chris Hedges is someone I find myself wrestling with throughout the day. The book that I will initially interact with is the national bestseller “The Death of the Liberal Class” because it covers so many topics that I would love address.
My question will be simply this: IF Chris Hedges is right about the world – how then should we do theology?
I hope that you will join me on this journey and jump into the conversation! I am neither Conservative or Liberal and have been deeply impacted by the book by Deborah Tannen “The Argument Culture: stopping America’s war of words” so I hope that you will feel safe to comment on what will be put forward even though the subject matter can be volatile.
Bo Sanders: Public Theology 
March 14, 2012 at 5:11 pm
Good start, Bo. I think of myself as a Richard-Weaver conservative rather than a GOP voter or a DNC voter, so it’s hard saying, before I read up on candidates in the week or so before an election (that’s all the time it really takes, folks), where I’m going to vote. I say that as a response to Bo’s italics there at the bottom, of course.
A couple brief responses to your post:
1) I’m going to play my usual contrarian role here (with the usual invitation to declare that I’ve entirely misunderstood your point) and note that contextual theology doesn’t necessarily exclude a concern for philosophy or history. In fact, I would argue (because I tend to be a traditionalist) that sometimes, the best medicine for modern distortions is some hard-nosed examination of categories and histories that surround and undergird present idiocies.
2) Certainly I’d be the last to underplay intellectual distortion for the sake of election-cycle partisan gain, but I do think that much of the hot air being blown about regarding recent health-insurance policy matters is worthless. Yes, Rush Limbaugh is an idiot. I’ve been saying as much for a good long while now. But I’ll admit that, if I’m going to think about politics as a valid subject matter for theological discussion (and I do), attention to the difference between real politics (not the same as realpolitik, but not unrelated) and sound-bite bluster has to be a priority.
March 14, 2012 at 9:38 pm
I really appreciate you as a conversation partner. We agree on so many things, there are a few things on which we different though. Those are fun to clarify
1) contextual theology does not exclude philosophic or systematic approaches but it does have quite harsh critique on their assertion to being timeless and universal
2) I do not do not believe the church’s future is to be found in Europe’s past 😉
3) I strongly disagree that the recent political bluster is nothing but hot air. I think that something very sinister underlies it
Thanks again for your feedback. I look forward to our ongoing conversation!
March 15, 2012 at 1:29 am
You’re right that we share many concerns–I imagine that comes from being seminarians not much more than a decade apart from one another. You also do well to note some of our differences.
To lend you some comfort, I take a fair bit of influence from a North African Bishop over against nineteenth-century German and twentieth-century French philosophers, so we agree that European thought often gets overrated. 😉
To be a bit more serious, you’re right that I don’t hold to a predictably progressive model of history. I try to stay open both to the possibility that the current moment is a correction on deficiencies of the past and to the possibility that the past might help us recover some good things that the present moment has unwisely cast aside. And I don’t think there’s any simple formula for deciding among historical phenomena and movements: it’s always the hard work of casuistry and rhetoric before us.
With regards to the Facebook accusations that the GOP is trying to “outlaw birth control” and the accusations that Obama’s health care plan calls for “death panels,” I do think that such slogans are largely hot air, so there we do disagree. I’m always interested in political discourse (as Milbank and Zizek use the terms), but I think that the ham-fisted ad campaigns that plague us every election cycle hardly deserve to share cognates.