Bloodless Coup

In other words, the pro-life/anti-abortion crowd in Missouri (and, implicitly, nationwide) is not only anti-abortion, but anti-contraception, anti-education, anti-choice, and anti-women.

I think they're actually anti-sex, or at least opposed to non-procreative sex (and, presumably, to any procreative sex that happens outside of a relationship lacking the formal blessings of the organized representatives of their imaginary friend). The other things just kinda flow from there, and from their resentments against women for being all tempting and shit.

This is interesting, in a comparative sort of way. Are there people out there who believe that sex is only for the purposes of bearing children, and if so are they opposed to sex at times of the month when that's less likely to occur? These are the kinds of issues that are going to begin to crop up in more conservative states. I do find it interesting that so many who claim to be religious would allow any sex when Christ says in the New Testament that the best thing is for a person to be essentially married to God, and it's only if they can't hack that, then they should get married. There's nothing like shooting for the consolation prize.

Actually, we're seeing the influence of Catholicism here, as most fundagelicals are not anti-contraception. And Morris, yes, Catholics who buy into the Natural Family Planning (NFP) method _are_ opposed to sex during particular times of the month.

It's also worth noting that there is a movement within the Roman to soften the regulations against contraceptives, especially as a method for dealing for the AIDS crisis in Africa.

Most, but not all. A close friend's sister married into one of the no hair cutting no pants for women home school etc etc sects, and well into her 40s was having repeat miscarriages (after something like 9 kids?) because as long as it was god's will she'd keep getting pregnant, and contraception or tubal ligation to help stave off chronic anemia and the permanent destruction of whatever internal organs she had left would have been against god's will (not to mention the husband's).

That situation was a real eyeopener.

Good point, but those protestants are likely heavily influenced by Catholic practices. Most folks like that have come to NFP decision themselves, not through a prescription from their particular denomination (if, in fact, they have one--"home churchers" often end up mimicing Roman practices, which is ironic since they are so far away from the Catholic tradition).

Morris, don't take Matthew 19:11-12 (1Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage[c]because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.") out of context. Christ had this to say a few verses earlier:

4"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'[a] 5and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'[b]? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

Marriage is not a consolation prize--Jesus hints in verse 11 that God calls people specifically to not marry, and therefore it is not for everyone, just as God calls others to marry (hence the "what God has joined together, let man not separate").

" heavily influenced by Catholic practices"

Which is funny, given that their perception of present day catholics is probably not so rosy.

The question of how close to "biblical" practices/ideologies the present evangelical movement is the topic for a whole 'nother post (or seven). I was brought up a Christian; went to Sunday school for many years, and have many years of bible studies in me (though they were many years ago). I don't remember learning anything about abortion (or condemnation thereof) or homosexuality (or condemnation thereof) or immorality (it was bad; it was never fully defined).

Thus, from my own point of view, I don't see today's evangelical movement (and the public leaders; Dobson, etc.) as being particularly "Christian" in their values or policy prescriptions. In other words, they talk about religion a great deal, but don't seem to really understand it.

It should be noted that not all Christians are evangelicals, and not all Christian are as nutty as Dobson (link). I've mentioned this before.

Baltar,
I think they do understand religion. Religion is an organization based upon a system of beliefs. What happens with all organizations no matter how wise their founders is that the ones who follow tend to be less wise. Sometimes they twist the beliefs out of honest misunderstanding, other times out of personal interest. The teachings of Jesus himself (and thankyou for your response BMJ, though I was kidding about that) are different once they're filtered through Paul, and then the early saints, and then the councils of Nicea. What was so remarkable about Christ's life was compassion for everyone, "Prince of Peace embraced the gloom and walked the night alone" as Led Zepplin would say it. But most people can't get their heads around that idea, so they fall back into dualism, into one idea being more important than another (like that quote from everybody's wedding about hope, faith, and love, and the greatest of these is love, when if that were true there would be equal love for faith and hope as there is for love), so we get a thousand different Christian belief systems. This is what religion looks like, very different from the teachings of Christ or Buddha. It's nearly impossible to maintain an organization without this kind of dualism, because why should someone spend their time serving the Church when they could be serving their boss or their family unless that which the organization represents is more important? This also goes along with doing what Jesus would do rather than listening to your own gut or your own heart. It places Jesus above the rest of us when someone full of ultimate compassion would understand that we all have value, and there's no truly compassionate way to lift up what Jesus would do if in so doing it would deny the value of what Baltar would do.

Morris,

I'm not sure I disagree with you (though the end of your paragraph gets a bit murky), though I guess my central point is that the modern evangelical movement seems to have moved very far away from the biblical teachings (as I interpret them). I certainly understand that as time goes on and people "interpret" the teachings of the founding figure/figures, this moves the religion somewhat away from it's original position; however, that's not what I'm seeing in modern US evangelicalism. They seem to be quite far from the message of love that Jesus preached.

I can find sociological, culture, political and even economic reasons for that shift, but I can't find religious reasons. That disturbs me.

Baltar, the answer is (of course) that the religion is bent to fit the rest as circumstances require. Do you know that it is now a tenet in some evangelical churches that it's good to be wealthy, as wealth is a sign of God's favor and means you're living correctly? It's a big big BIG leap from Jesus's message, which is an almost Eastern-flavored divest-yourself-of-worldly-attachments-and-know-God sort of thing, even after two centuries of Church filtration. But whether you think of "Christianity" as a corrupt organization or as an evolving organism, the mutation makes some sense.

This sort of remaking of Christianity isn't new, either, though it's newly prominent. I wish I knew more about the various "revivals" that went on in the late 1800s; some of the roots of the modern evangelical movement are there but I don't know enough to meaningfully point them out. It is mostly an American thing, though. Why?

jacflash,

I'll agree that religion is (almost always) bent away from the "original" teachings: the more interesting questions are how is it bent, why is it bent, and who bends it? Look at Constantine (Roman Emporer, 300 AD), who used Christianity (a new religion at the time, with few established norms, since it had been persecuted by the Roman Empire for most of the 300 years) as a tool to help him establish greater control over his own empire (he may or may not have been a devout convert to Christianity; whether he was or not is morely irrelevant to the political aspects of his conversion).

Thus, if modern "US" evangelicalism is far from "christianity" (whatever that is), why is it, how did it get there, and who took it there (for what purpose)? That's the unknown.

Have I told you about my desire to make Matthew 19 bumper stickers, and helpfully place them on behemoth SUVs adorned with an abundance of Christian accoutrement?

"It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for someone rich to enter the kingdom of Heaven." (Matthew 19:24)

Back to Baltar's point, though, I think both of us find the political manifestations of Christianity - as well as the related polarization of the faith - to be a far cry from the teachings we were brought up with. I think many people would blame moderates and liberals who have distanced themselves from the church as the cause of the radicalization, but in my personal experience I see it more as an effect.

Of course, generation may play a big role. We were age of aquarious let the sunshine happy hippy children of jesus (or, as wee tykes this is the christianity we were exposed to). As Baltar says, the Jesus of love and acceptance, the NT Jesus, not the Old Books Christianity of Leviticus.

Baltar, I think you weren't around for the Council of Nicaea sidebar we had a couple of weeks back, but, um, yeah re the Holy Romans. And I think the answer to the "why" is that "Christianity" is simply an organism that is adapting to local hosts and responding to outside forces, particuarly some peculiarly American cultural forces. Which ones? I dunno offhand, though I suspect we could find our way to some fairly solid guesses. (Come visit me; we'll drink Belgian ale and work on it.) I'm also quite sure we wouldn't be the first to venture down that road, though most of the work there is done by Xtians and thus a bit suspect.

I'm not sure I disagree with you (though the end of your paragraph gets a bit murky), though I guess my central point is that the modern evangelical movement seems to have moved very far away from the biblical teachings (as I interpret them).

This is due, in part at least, to the lack of any sort of theological tradition within evangelical churches. Many, many churches have tried so hard to divest themselves of any "Catholic" tradition that they are constantly remaking themselves or approaching theology as a salad bar. Without strong leadership (like the papacy, or the synods of the magisterial Presbyterian churches), no one can tell them they're wrong. Theology becomes what ever feels good, even if it can't be justified biblically. One of the worst offenders these days is the "emergent" church, which picks at traditions willy-nilly whilst trying to formulate a "post-modern/post-christian" theology (whatever that is). In the end, it just comes off as a marketing ploy. Your average evangelical church does no better, as jacflash points out--their theology lacks any cohesion.

That said, there are churches trying to live authenticate Christian lives, fueled by a full reading of scripture and a deep knowledge of the great theological/intellectual tradition of the Church. The best examples are Catholics who fall in line behind Dorothy Day (and the Catholic Worker movement) and Ivan Illich--superficially these people are still conservatives (though likely big C conservatives, rather than contemporary Republicans), but their faith often takes them in other, rather non-conservative directions (both Day and Illich were committed anarchists). Protestants have also tapped into this tradition, lead by (among others) Jacques Ellul and Stanley Hauerwas. Of course, many in these traditions get labeled as leftists and Marxists, and are largely ignored (if you'd like to see this in action, check out the Crunchy Con blog on the National Review site. Rod Dreher has attempted to outline a traditionalist conservatism founded, in part, on this sort of theology, and the neo-cons there (even the Christians) just don't get it). It is worth noting that these traditions often choose to operate under the radar, as it were, and they eschew politics as a means to an end. They seek to do Christ's work not by telling people what to do, but by living a life of compassion for others, especially those in their family, church, and community.

I'll buy all of this (by all the commentors), but I'll ask a related question: we seem to see more fundamentalism in America than in other (i.e., European) versions of Christianity. Is this because of a sort-of-latent-but-not-really anti-intellectualism inherent in America? If modern Evangelicalism lacks "theological tradition" (as bmj) said), well, theology isn't easy - it takes study and thinking and writing and arguing and study again. That's an intellectual pursuit. Americans don't like intellectuals, thus, no theology.

Baltar,
Don't forget Americans are also heavily invested in a culture of political independence. And this "Don't you tell me what to do" attitude will have religious consequences regarding energizing a new evangelical church to move away from more traditional theological approaches, even if they claim to embrace the same roots (the message ends up being "You got it wrong, and you're going to Hell, Hell, Hell"). Ever forward!

I'm not claiming a point (I was asking a question), but a culture of independence does not preclude a quasi-intellectual (or fully intellectual) theology: it just means a bunch of people arguing about what the theology means; I don't even think we have that, in America.

OK, various and sundry points, Morris first. I'm curious about the relationship between the "American" tradition you describbe, and its tie to the germanic roots of our protestant history. Are you saying the us political reality reinforced the individualism of the reformation, or that it trumps it?

As to Catholic workers, these are the ones the Bush administration is targeting as terror suspects, because they advocate a quasi-communistic way of life. [of course, it makes you want to thump them in the head with a 2x4 and say "Right! Just like Jesus and the Apostles, assholes!" but that wouldn't be very nice, I suppose]. I've long thought that in terms of what I grew up with as "ideal" Christianity, the Sisters of Mercy (and such) got a lot more "right" than most other branches and demoninations: human rights, care for the poor, etc etc. More of that gentle jesus crap that doesn't gel with muscular christianity.

Which brings me to another point, that our (referencing mine and baltar's, and perhaps jacflash - did you guys go to the same church? - too) jesus is way too femmy for the agressive patriarchal lot. I don't think it's a coincidence.

I still have a hard time with the Catholic influence thing. One of the first bricks in my path away from the church was the sharp distinction (negative) between us and everyone else (the heathens). Everyone else included Jews, catholics and Orthodox (muslims or hindus? never even heard of them, and they were probably in the pagans and heathen category for real). I'll never forget going to the greek festival at the orthodox church in my hometown, and asking about why their cross was different, and learning that they weren't going to heaven like Christians. They could be good people like the Jews, but the orthodox and the catholics - who had the added problem of being idol worshippers [if only Stalin were here for this discussion...alas, he hasn't been around in awhile] - but they weren't going to heaven. Years later while on a plane to Brazil, the cute teenage boy going home to visit relatives sitting next to me started chatting up the cute teenage girl sitting in front of us. Turns out she was going to brazil with a religious group. The boy was wearing a cross, as was the girl. Being part brazilian, he knew that Brazil was like 95% catholic. So, continuing the friendly flirting, he said, "oh, you guys must be catholic too!" And the blond girl looked at him like he just farted and said, "oh no, we're christian"

On a final note, please, before I pop an aneurysm, unless you are talking about "all the way from Inuit country to Tierra de Fuego" please stop saying America.

UPDATE: more fuel for the fire to come!

Binky:

The patriarchal lot wouldn't recognize "my" Jesus, who is much more like a Taoist sage reframing his ideas for a Jewish audience than a Son of God(TM). See my comments on Nicaea, etc., but this is really a discussion for another day.

Baltar:

Anti-intellectual? Or a more empowered (vs. Europe) not-quite-intellectual class that is driving this stuff? We have (and have had for a hundred years or more) a broad swath of people who aren't quite intellectuals in the European mold but who still have a (public school) education, access to means of communication, no cultural tradition of deferring to elites (rather the reverse), etc.

Most people will call a Day a leftist/Marxist/anarchist, but it's important to remember that at the same time, she was a committed tradtionalist. Day on the sexual revolution:

"This whole crowd goes to extremes in sex and drugs .... Also it is a complete rebellion against authority, natural and supernatural, even against the body and its needs, its natural functions of child bearing."

Day and Illich are best known for their compassion, but it's important to note that they also agreed with the Church's position on marriage and the family.