[Previous entry: "Some lines won't be crossed"] [Next entry: "WARC votes for poverty"]
08/12/2004: ""Progressives"–partisan? Perish the thought!"
UCC seminarian and liberal blogger Chuck Currie strains credulity as he seeks to distinguish between the religious right and left:
If there a difference between the political aims of the religious rights [sic] and the progressive left? Yes, and it is pretty basic. The Southern Baptists, for example, maintain close ties with Republican political candidates, like George W. Bush, and work to elect them. Their efforts often cross the line between separation of church and state and even violate IRS rules governing churches.
This is a rather serious charge for which Currie offers no evidence. Not surprising, really, since there's no evidence to be found. Are there Southern Baptists working to elect George Bush? Sure, just like there are liberal Christians working to elect John Kerry (such as Currie himself, though he admits to not being overly thrilled about it, Kerry not being far enough left for him). Nothing about that violates IRS rules. Contrary to the current hysteria on the left, conservative churches as churches are doing nothing more than what liberal churches have legitimately done for decades–registering people to vote, talking about issues that parishioners may consider when deciding who to vote for, even having candidates speak from the pulpit, as Kerry did in Cleveland a couple of weeks ago. The Christian Coalition (a political organization, rather than a church) puts out voters' guides to candidates' position (as does the NCC-connected FaithfulAmerica.org through Project Vote Smart); the National Council of Churches puts out a pamphlet on "Christian Principles in an Election Year" that reads like part of the Democrats' party platform. Perhaps the principle difference between the religious right and religious left is that the former doesn't go running off to the IRS to try to stifle other voices as do elements of the latter.
Progressive religious people tend to be tied more to causes (homelessness, poverty, civil rights, health care, etc.) than to individual candidates and almost never claim to speak for God on partisan political issues. Claiming to speak for God is a hallmark of the religious right.
Really? Take another look at those election-year principles from the NCC. Item 1 says flatly, "War is contrary to the will of God." Sounds like they're speaking loudly and clearly for God in this one. Or item 4: "God calls us to be advocates for those who are most vulnerable in our society. We look for political leaders who yearn for economic justice and who will seek to reduce the growing disparity between rich and poor." While God's concern for just treatment of the poor is demonstrated throughout Scripture, the "disparity between rich and poor" is a different matter, much more a manifestation of a Marxist desire for elimination of class differences than a biblical mandate. Yet the NCC suggests that this is God's goal as well. In truth, there are plenty of examples of left-wing clergy claiming to speak in God's name.
As for the lack of connection to partisanship, the NCC Web site has a link to Working Assets, whose WorkingForChange subsidiary is simply a left-wing propaganda outlet devoted to defeating George Bush. Bob Edgar is the co-chair of Win Without War, and anti-war organization that links to Democratic Party shill MoveOn.org and their petition drive to censure George Bush for going into Iraq. Organizations like the NCC, the General Board of Global Ministries of the United Methodist Church and the American Friends Service Committee are part of United for Peace and Justice, along with such non-partisan organizations as MoveOn, various Green Party affiliates, the International Solidarity Movement, and the Communist Party USA. Then there's the Clergy Leadership Network, which has abandoned any pretense of nonpartisanship, explaining that "if you are ready to reach beyond nonpartisanship–that is, if you are ready to advocate political change and work every way you can to bring it about–then you can do that through Clergy Network." As I recall, Currie did a back-slapping interview with the head of the CLN, Albert Pennybacker, a couple of months ago. So maybe "nonpartisanship" isn't always the way of the left after all.
