Two times ago when Donald Miller came to speak at Baylor he talked about, among other things, why the Islamic fundamentalists hate America. I’m guessing it was to sort of take a shot at the Republican Evangelicals that sort of embody the type of Christian he disdains, but Miller commented that Islamic fundamentalists do not hate America because we are trying to spread freedom…rather they hate us because of our porn. This like many things Miller says was a blanket statement giving a glance into what he sees to be a bigger problem. Most of the time I write Miller off because even if he is correct I think he is often rhetorical and misses the whole “lovingly challenge” or “lovingly correct/rebuke” part of grace. I’m not suggesting he’s a bad guy, in fact I think he’s pretty bright, but this rhetoric makes it hard for me to listen to him.
Anyhow recently I read this blog post posted by Greg Boyd. I notice two things about Greg. He uses the language of and really is the embodiment of the sort of Christianity that I have rebelled against. However, Greg has always struck me as intensely passionate and authentic, thus he’s never lost the right to speak into my life. I still read his blog and listen to his sermons. Recently he made the same point Miller makes. I thought his ideas were thought provoking. Here are two paragraphs from that post.
“Radical Islamic groups notice that America has a drastic morally corroding effect on every country it influences. This is undeniable. Our brand of capitalism is inextricably bound up with sexually explicit advertising, which they abhor. And we are by far the main exporter of sexually explicit entertainment around the globe.
Consequently, these groups associate the “freedom” America stands for and now claims it wants to export to the rest of the world with its debauchery. And they understandably want to stop this at all costs. So, in the name of Allah, they have declared war on “the great Satan.” (Of course, they also have many other reasons for identifying America as "Satan" as well -- but our promiscuity is one of the major ones).”
It’s strange to me that the people who send the soldier to fight the Islamic Fundamentalists and the Islamic Fundamentalists end up being strange bed fellows. Allow me to be general and grossly oversimplify positions. I think the belief that Americans are over there to spread freedom because freedom is a good thing is a Republican belief. I also believe that these republicans that are interested in the spread of democracy would probably be the same people who would also like to see not only the stopping of America’s continual decline on the slope of moral ambiguity, but also to see the stopping of this part of America’s effect on the rest of the world.
Too bad the two parties couldn’t understand this about each other. Perhaps they could refocus their efforts in a more peaceful way.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Josh,
With you my friend on the substance of this post. But something you wrote peaked my curiosity.
You write, "He [Greg] uses the language of and really is the embodiment of the sort of Christianity I have rebelled against." I'm curious as to what this means? Do you mean you have rebelled against evangelical Christianity? Do you mean something else? It was just an interest-provoking line for me, as I've never heard you put it like this before.
perhaps rebelled isn't the best word here. If I'm honest a certain amount of cynicism has crept up within me towards the lack of thoughtfulness that I perceive in most evangelical churches. this does not not mean that I can't think of 10 good ones that are both doing healthy theology and praxis off hand. Only that I wish more and more churches would just find a way to be more authentic about what they are really doing. This lack of thoughtfulness and authenticity is what I rebel against.
What I hear you saying is that a lack of honestly dealing with life, and thinking through the complexity of faith (or something like that) is what you are rebelling against. Is this right? In which case, it wouldn't seem you are rebelling against evangelical churches only (though they might be the easiest to point to), but also mainline churches or any church that isn't authentically trying to be the church in the world, yes? I'm just trying to get a handle on where your journey is taking you.
For the record, I'm more or less in agreement with you. For the record.
I would ask Miller if they hate us because of our porn, then why were many of the hijackers identified at strip clubs during the days leading up to 9/11?
Craig, its funny... that's the first thing that I thought of when reading this post too. (I guess maybe this is what happens when a notion of salvation gets hitched to works in any religion.)
Josh, I certainly understand your desire to see a genuine confession of faith. Just out of curiosity do you think it is becoming more difficult for churches to be genuine in both praxis and theology given our present social milieu? I just feel so pessimistic and judgmental sometimes. I wonder if I have sometimes misjudged.
Then there is the other side of the coin as well. Churches have become so "culturally relevant", whatever that really means in our present age, that it seems they become completely disingenuous. Case and point, I was watching a new ESPN show called "Varsity". It chronicles the year one of the best high school football teams in Louisiana. They follow the starting quarterback around everywhere he goes, including church. I don't know if it was just for some sermon series or a permanent change but the whole front of the church was made to look like a football stadium, from Astroturf with yard lines to goalposts to jumbotrons modified to look more like those of a football stadium. I love football, but even I was ready to puke. How can anyone come across as genuine in such a situation? It was like Varsity Blues meets mega church for soft porn convention with high school students. I wonder if it’s time for people to start pointing out the fact that it’s not really all that relevant to be less than genuine. Especially to the overly critical of gen x and y.
Anyway, you have some good thoughts. I feel much like you about Donald, but I'm a sucker for a good story, so sometimes he'll catch me.
Craig,
that is an interesting point that I didn't know about. This is why it is increasingly hard for me to ever cast a vote with confidence for either political party. It seems like the other guy always has another story that he could use to rebuttal point. The real challenge is deciding which narratives tend to reflect the most amount of truth. To grossly oversimplify...they either hate us because of our democracy or our porn. I'd love to empirically verify the answer, but I'm afraid it's just not possible.
Another possible catalyst for others ire toward America might be that they deeply resent our torture, economic devastation and meddling in ancient cultures and governments we simply don't understand. I would suggest that Porn and Democracy (an interesting juxtaposition by the way), at least in my limited perspective, is probably a bit down on the list.
Josh,
I really enjoyed this post. Thank you. I noticed that you latched on to his implication of pornography, but not his implication of capitalism (since, of course, capitalism's expansionary tendencies are really what's driving this). What he's saying is in-line with sociologists' critiques of capitalism, dating back to Marx. Marx said that to avoid economic crisis, capitalism must constantly expand to find new markets for its products and new sources for materials. It compels all other nations to adopt its values, norms, and economic structure or fear starvation. In his words, it "creates a world after its own image."
In a more contemporary example, John Bellamy Foster (a professor in my department at U of Oregon, but also the leading neo-Marxist scholar in the U.S.), wrote a book last year called "Naked Imperialism: The U.S. Pursuit of Global Dominance" where he argued that our military and economic influence in the middle east (and around the world) doesn't stem from our love of democracy, as G.W. would have you believe, but it stems from our own fear of economic crisis in our country. So, we set up military bases in 124 countries including every middle eastern country and our corporations open branches in just about every nation,; it's a very transparent attempt to assert economic and cultural dominance over the rest of the world. It thrusts American-brand capitalism into every other nation, even the ones that don't have the infrastructure or culture to support it. With the economics comes values and culture, of course. And, that's why many other countries don't like us. But, there's two schools of thought on how this happens:
Instrumentalists argue that all of this is intentional-- that business elites and government officials are in bed together creating plans to assert our economic and military power over the rest of the world. The state is really an "instrument" of powerful elites. Structuralists argue that these groups are too atomized to make such coherent and intentional plans. Rather, capitalism is structured and set up to encourage such expansion and the players just act predictably in their own self-interest. But, the result is the same. Foster makes the argument much more clearly than I ever could.
I just wanted to point out that you mention capitalism as one of the key issues, but I think it deserves a little more attention.
Many other countries are just as democratic as the United States, and they have pornography as well. But, no one hates them (at least not as much). It could have to do with the degree to which they've taken an imperialist economic position.
Post a Comment