Comments on: I Want Manna, Not Mammon

By: Ales Rarus - A Rare Bird, A Strange Duck, One Funky Blog » Taking Stock

Ales Rarus - A Rare Bird, A Strange Duck, One Funky Blog » Taking Stock — Mon, 22 May 2006 14:22:16 +0000

[...] "I most like when you have a theological insight, e.g. matrimony and the mystical union of the church. I least like the, I'm above it all, I'm not like those reformed bloggers, I didn't drink the kool-aid stuff…If you're smarter than the rest, prove it by building something more succesful than theirs." [...]

By: AHerald

AHerald — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

Forbes' "obsessions," Toomy's "crusade"? … And you think Bowyer drinks partisan Kool-Aid? Physician, heal thyself.

By: Funky Dung

Funky Dung — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

What's partisan about disagreeing with their positions? I think you've jumped to the conclusion that I agree with polar opposites. I haven't. If Bowyer were spouting rhetoric about socialized healthcare, ousting Tom Delay, or some other obsession of the Left with nary a reference to the Gospel, I'd decry that as well. I'm a fan of neither the Right nor the Left and would prefer more political variety on a Christian radio program. Even if the Right had a monopoly on the Gospel (HA!), I'd expect the Right's platform positions to be related to, and preferrably supported by, the Gospel. Chit-chatting about supply-side economics might have been appropriate for Jerry's old gig, but expectations are different at WORD.

By: Ernesto

Ernesto — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

It is interesting to note how many religion blogs (not implying this one at all fits into this category) tend to merge religious positions and political partisanship — fairly orthodox believer, politically right leaning blog, more liberal in theology, politically left leaning blog. But it doesn't seem like one necessarily follows from the other … does it?

By: Funky Dung

Funky Dung — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

I'd certainly hope not, Ernesto. Independent and moderate Godbloggers such as me are doomed to obscurity otherwise.

By: Funky Dung

Funky Dung — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

As distasteful as I find certain political ideals going hand-in-hand (and unquestioned) with certain schools of theology, I don't hold bloggers to the same standards as a paid radio personality. Bowyer's job is to converse with Pittsburgh's Christians about interesting topics relating to the Gospel. If politics come up on the show, fine. I just wish an effort was being made to relate them to Christian faith and practice in some way.

By: AHerald

AHerald — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

There's a tin can clang sound to your defense, friend. If you'd merely objected to "nary a reference to the Gospel," regarding Bowyers' interviews with political guests, then perhaps your self-professed claim of 'neither Right nor Left' political independence and desire for overt Christian themes in political interviews might ring truer to my ears.

Your partisanship (which, by the way is not something I say in a pejorative manner, for I'm a proud Catholic partisan of the Right) is revealed not in the disagreement per se, but in the manner in which you disagreed. The descriptive labels you applied–"Republican [not merely political] kool-aid," "obsessive," "crusade"–are clear partisan value judgements, reductive and dismissive caricatures which commonly originate on the Left and reveal your own political biases.

If your concern and complaint was solely about the lack of a "Christian connection," then one wonders why you felt compelled to go beyond that specific complaint to also disparage Republicans and their ideas. After all, what did your opinions about Republicans and their politics have to do with the substance of your complaint regarding an absence of Christian themes in political interviews?

Finally, does an obviously intelligent Christian like yourself really need a talk show host to connect the dots on how public tax and healthcare policies intersect and relate to faith or Christian living?

By: howard

howard — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

He might not need that, but I think I do. Because there are many positions embraced on religious talk shows that have no obvious correlation to Christian principles.

So for my benefit, could you explain the intersection between Forbes' tax ideas or Toomey's healthcare policies and the a compassionate Christian lifestyle?

By: Funky Dung

Funky Dung — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

"Finally, does an obviously intelligent Christian like yourself really need a talk show host to connect the dots on how public tax and healthcare policies intersect and relate to faith or Christian living?"

Yeah, apparently I do. I fail to see how the political ideals he presented jive with Jesus' teachings regarding wealth and salvation (poor in spirit, eye of a needle, etc). I believe intelligent arguments can be made from all parts of the spectrum regarding how best to incorporate the Gospel into secular life. I may disagree with a lot of them, but I can respect a well-constructed argument. Bowyer presents no such arguments. He unapologetically presents a narrow band of the political spectrum without any Christian justification whatsoever. If I seem to take a jaundiced view of the Right, it's because I'm tired of orthodox/traditional/conservative Christian being synonymous with Republican. Countless conservative Christian leaders talk about conservative Republican policies as though they obviously and automatically agree with the Gospel. Christians should support or oppose policies, not parties. Otherwise, we'll be used, abused, and taken for granted just like blacks and unions are by the Democratic Party.

By: AHerald

AHerald — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

Questions of taxation have an inherently moral component, most particularly with regards to justice. Likewise, virtually all government expenditures invoke explicit or implicit questions of morality. And any questions of morality and justice quite naturally and plainly intersect with God, the ultimate author and arbiter of justice and morality. Hence, the relation to Christianity appears evident.

I fail to see how the political ideals he presented jive with Jesus' teachings regarding wealth and salvation (poor in spirit, eye of a needle, etc).

A revealing connection you've reflexively made here. The subject of tax policy seems to automatically connote for you images of rich men and wealth, as if lower and middle-class working Joes somehow aren't affected or concerned about such matters.

More to your point, though, the specific teachings of Jesus you mention are about the power of wealth and worldly treasures to turn weak and fallen man away from his true good which is God. Why you would think that truism should somehow "jive" with any formulation of tax or government policies is puzzling. (I hope you're not implying you would be supportive of a policy which would make rich people poor through taxation 'for their own good', so to speak, in order to bring them into complience with Christ's teachings?)

Jesus was teaching the truth about the greedy nature of man and the dangerous temptation of misplaced priorities (cf Matt 6:19-21). He wasn't advocating the good of poverty for its own sake; or poverty enforced upon the wealthy by government confiscation of earnings through taxation.

I believe intelligent arguments can be made from all parts of the spectrum regarding how best to incorporate the Gospel into secular life. I may disagree with a lot of them, but I can respect a well-constructed argument.

Given that a "random thought of the moment" appears on your site which reads, "Vote Republican -- it's easier than thinking," I'm gonna take that boast of intellectual fairness (along with your earlier claim to be a "fan of neither the Right nor the Left") with a large grain of salt.

If I seem to take a jaundiced view of the Right, it's because I'm tired of orthodox/traditional/conservative Christian being synonymous with Republican.

See above: Tendentious would seem to be a more apt description than jaundiced, but that's purely deductive speculation on my part.

You may be tired of the synonymous relationship Republicans and "orthodox" Christians, but it's a seemingly inarguable fact of life in America today: Poll upon poll consistently reveals that those whom actively practice their faith (regular Churchgoers, scripture readers, etc.) are overwhelmingly inclined to identify themselves as Republicans. Conversely, nominal or non-practicing Christians and other peoples of faith, as well as agnostics and atheists overwhelmingly identify themselves with Democrats.

Facts is facts and demographics is demographics. Appealling to the prevailing Christian Right demographic is just plain smart business. If traditional Christians were Lefties, Christian-themed talk radio would likewise be slanted toward the Dems.

Christians should support or oppose policies, not parties.

Hard to disagree with that sentiment. But as a practical matter, of course, it's a bit of a false dichotomy. Policies are put before the voters by parties, most notably in their respective platforms.

It's also not terribly realistic for Christian voters to parse out the policies from the party or from a candidate. After all, how does a good Catholic, for example, vote for virtually any modern Democrat without violating the Church's clear teaching against voting for a pro-abortion politician in lieu of "proportianate reasons" (keeping in mind that national security, the war in Iraq, Social Security, or taxes, taken singly or in any combination don't add up to proportinate reason).

Forgive the long response. I went to write something brief and it turned out not so brief.

Yours in Christ,

Aaron