| 15 minutes of fame |
|
|
| Monday, 22 May 2006 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Tag it:           Janel interviewed by Washington Post Our conversation drifted from political activism and upbringing to terminology and definitions. When she asked me what sorts of political activity I have been involved in directly, I was a bit taken aback myself to realize that my direct political activity is rather limited. Attending a protest or rally here, signing a petition there, etc. I tried to explain to her that in my circles, personal lifestyle choices—rather than direct lobbying and activism—are perhaps considered the most important type of political activity. We spend time and energy trying to leave less of an environmental footprint, support those in need, identify with the oppressed, and ward off consumerism. Many of us—by hobby or by trade—write and speak about political issues, but we usually consider our role to be that of bearing witness and persuasion rather than directly influencing policy. I hadn't thought much before about why I, for one, take this more “behind the scenes” approach to politics. It probably has something to do with tending to be a “micro” sort of person more than a “macro” sort of person, politically speaking. I'd rather be involved in an enrichment program for at-risk kids than spend my time campaigning to slightly alter the language of a particular bill. Perhaps this is why I am drawn to teaching. It also might have something to do with my lack of hope in the political process. It seems that those in power do what they will, regardless of what I have to say about it. So, I find it more productive to try to help inform young voters and to work on issues within the private sector, many of which the government has defaulted on, as far as I'm concerned. This doesn't mean that I believe peace building, poverty alleviation, and environmental protection aren't the government's responsibility. I'm just doubtful about whether there is much I can do to get our current leaders to change their approach. The most interesting part of the conversation, for me, was our discussion about terms such as “liberal,””conservative,” “religious left,” “religious right” and “evangelical.” Those familiar with my academic agenda will not be surprised by this; I'm always game to hash out the definitions of these terms, especially with someone else who cares. It's been my hunch for a while now (a hunch I'm hoping to explore in my dissertation) that such terms are largely outmoded and that a new contingent of North American Christians is rising up who simply cannot be placed in any of these categories. Many North American Christians who take their faith seriously, both Protestant and Catholic, don't fit into either the “liberal” category or the “conservative” category, both politically and theologically. I explained to Ms. Murphy that while people like me are certainly not fans of the religious right, we don't fit into the religious left either. The very fact that I disagree with a woman's “right to choose” removes my welcome in the Democratic Party. Considering my impression that Ms. Murphy understood and even resonated with what I was saying, I was a little disappointed that she used the culture war motif in her article anyhow. She didn't challenge the assumption that those who baulk at the idea that “moral issues” consist of abortion and same-sex marriage are card-carrying members of the religious left. Her article perpetuated the idea (popular among scholars such as Robert Wuthnow and James Davison Hunter) that religious left and religious right are engrossed in hurling bombs at each other from either side of an ever widening chasm. On the topic of terminology, I also explained to Ms. Murphy that while people in my contingent are not theological liberals, we don't fit into many people's definition of “evangelical” either. While we take the Bible seriously, we aren't biblical literalists. We affirm the apostle's creed, but we aren't propositionalists. Looking for a footing, she asked me to name a few institutions and/or figures claimed by the contingent I was describing. I mentioned the obvious flagships of Sojouners (with Captain Jim) and the Emerging Church (with Captain Brian) and the not-so-obvious voices of Culture is Not Optional, International Justice Mission, Brian Walsh and Sylvia Keesmaat, and even Laryn's website. I should have also mentioned Christian Community Development Association and John Perkins, Evangelicals for Social Action and Ron Sider, World Vision, Bread for the World, and others that didn't come to mind then (or now). Thus, I'm not too keen on Ms. Murphy's introduction of me as a “theologically traditionalist Christian,” but I can't say I blame her because I'm not sure what terminology I would use instead. Theologically moderate? Post-evangelical? Nineteenth-century-esque evangelical? Emerging? Creedal? Orthodox? None of these seem quite right either. Maybe this sort of dilemma is why Laryn so dislikes generalizations. As far as my two sentences in print go, I was pleased to be quoted accurately. It's always a little scary when a 20-minute interview is distilled into a few sound bites, but Ms. Murphy did a good job with her spin. I feel compelled to offer a few caveats, however. First off, for the record, I'm not a communist! Quasi-socialist, maybe. But I didn't mean to reject capitalism outright. I should have said that some of us youngish Christians are questioning whether unbridled, multi-national-corporation-dominated, free-market capitalism is the most ethical way to organize a society. Secondly, I always struggle with how to describe my upbringing politically. I certainly didn't grow up in a fundamentalist home and wouldn't say that Dad and Mom were/are part of the religious right. Protesting abortion is the only political activity I remember from my youth, but that doesn't mean that my parents, at least, didn't care about other issues. We just didn't talk about politics much. It was only after I began questioning the link between Christianity and capitalism as a young adult that Dad and I started conversing about economics. And now the baton has been passed of to Laryn for the purpose of father/son-in-law bonding. As a child and teenager, I was probably most influenced by the political culture of my church and school communities, which were both unapologetically conservative. Yes, we did pass the litmus test of Focus (Fetish) on the Family bulletin inserts! I think that about covers my response to my “fifteen minutes of fame.” Overall, I was encouraged after my conversation with Ms. Murphy in that I ended the interview feeling more convinced that there is a dissertation topic buried somewhere under all this talk of religious liberals gaining new visibility. I'm still not sure how I'll tackle the topic, but I'm more confident that it is worth exploring. If you think it is a little odd that I exhausted all this print on a tiny blurb, it's only because I don't expect to ever be quoted in a national newspaper again. And because I've been feeling bad that the “and Janel” part of this website is largely a farce. Now that the spring semester is over, I promised Laryn I'd try to pull my weight a little more on “our” website.
Powered by !JoomlaComment 3.12 Copyright (C) 2007 Alain Georgette / Copyright (C) 2006 Frantisek Hliva. All rights reserved. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
Shutterstock submissions - Thanks. I wil...
Shutterstock submissions - To be honest,...
That was fast. Thanks! I'm a professiona...
Shutterstock size limits - Chris, I hope...
OK, so I've taken the plunge, starting w...