For all of Hilary's quirks, at least she is consistent...

I like to draw. I am concerned with politics. So I've decided to dabble in the art of political cartooning.

A Liberal in the Dirty South

Back home (Central New York) I am not considered to be politically left or right by most people. Back home, I can be a moderate. An increasingly frustrating thing for me lately has been the constant label of 'liberal.' Often it is said tongue in cheek, often it is merely implied. What frustrates me about this is not the association with the left, so much as the things that I talk about that give others the impression that I am liberal minded. Two issues come to mind that, by merely bringing them up label me as politically left down here in Northeast Georgia (especially at a conservative Bible college!).

The first is the urban poor in America. When did caring for the poor, something emphatically stressed in both the Old and New Testaments, become an exclusively liberal idea? Didn't Jesus, prophet to some, teacher to others, God to Christians, stress the need to feed the hungry and clothe the naked? Am I wrong in thinking that this is NOT an exclusively liberal idea?

The next issue I recognize as a more complicated one, but is not, in my opinion, one that should determine whether one lies on the political spectrum. War. I am a pacifist. In the minds of a majority of people down here, I am a pacifist, I am therefore a liberal. I am outspoken in my disgust for the Iraq war. It is not a just use of force, by any standards. Even proponents of 'just war theory' have to acknowledge the problems with our Iraq conflict. Plenty of conservatives (politically) doubt the justice of our current conflict.

Generally speaking, I consider myself to be a political moderate. I am not big government. I am not big business. I am not militaristic. I believe in the value of education and infrastructure. I think we should try and create a government that fosters social equality for all races and ethnicities. My views on the poor and war should not label me 'left' or 'right'. Why does this frustrate me so much?

Far to often people use these labels as defense mechinisms so that they do not have to engage in a real discussion. If someone is a 'liberal' or 'conservative' and you fall in an oppositional camp, you don't have to take them seriously. That seems to me to be the only explanation. A lot of people don't want to think about these issues critically so they label those with conflicting views to be members of an oppositional camp in order to make illegitimate their position and prohibit dialogue.

One more thing that frustrates me. Political conservatism does not imply or necessitate religious conservatism, and visa-versa. One can be politically left and religiously right. I have had few come out and say it, but I have had some imply that because I care about issues seemingly left politically, I am somehow a religious liberal as well.



I don't normally get this angry when I post, and much of this is inarticulate and not well thought out. Just some thoughts on my mind this morning.

Anabaptists, Pentecostals, and Homophobia

I never finished The Politics of Jesus, though it is definitely on my list of books to read. I am an expert at returning books late to the library and unfortunately The Politics of Jesus was well overdue so I needed to return it. In its place, I checked out A contemporary Anabaptist Theology as well as Artists, Citizens, Philosophers: seeking the peace of the city, an Anabaptist Theology of Culture. I'm further along in this second book and I am finding it quite fascinating. I'll post more comments on it hopefully as I get further along.

In addition to familiarizing myself with the Anabaptists, I watched the riveting and controversial documentary Jesus Camp this week. For those of you unfamiliar with the film, it is a documentary about an extremely charismatic pentecostal children's camp in North Dakota. Critics of the camp argue that they are manipulative and forcefully indoctrinate their children with right wing conservative propaganda. Although I think most critics are a touch harsh, I must admit that their were parts of the film that made me feel uncomfortable, namely when a group of children prayed over a cardboard cutout of George W. Granted, however, I am not the biggest Bush fan anyway. Regardless of my opinion about this particular pentecostal church, I find myself having to remind myself that this particular church does not represent a majority of Pentecostals, and it certainly doesn't represent all evangelicals.

In an ironic bit of Jesus Camp Ted Haggard is captured preaching against homosexuality and mentioning that "sin will find you out." Obviously this film was shot and released before the current scandal hit the media...I was listening to Tony Campolo's thoughts on the whole issue when I heard him mention Haggard's meth addiction. I didn't remember hearing about it before, and as Tony pointed out how ridiculous it is that evangelicals (as a majority) are not outraged about his use of meth, I found myself agreeing. Why are we so homophobic? Why are we not as equally outraged by Ted Haggard's addiction to an elicit substance as we are his homosexual actions? As I talked to one of my professors about this, it was brought to my attention that our difference in opinion on this subject is most likely due to our beliefs on sin. As a result of this conversation, I now have a lot more questions about sin. Is there an hierarchy of sins? Are some sins worse than others? Why have evangelicals (in general) picked homosexuality and abortion as their "worst" sins while neglecting the atrocities of war and injustice to the poor (this last one which is mentioned biblically far more than these others)?

The Politics of Jesus pt.1

I've been reading through The Politics of Jesus by John Howard Yoder, and I must say, it has been quite thought provoking. For anyone interested in a good, serious diologue with pacifism, this is probably the best biblical approach to it that I have read (granted my reading on the subject is certainly not exhaustive).
If there was ever a man who could have waged a just war, it was Jesus of Nazareth. If there was ever a man who had just cause for war, it too was Jesus of Nazareth. If there was ever a man who had the authority to wage a just war, again, it was Jesus of Nazareth. Finally, if there was ever a man who had the power and military following to win a just war, it was Jesus of Nazareth.
Yet, as easy as it would have been for Christ to usher in his kingdom through armed conflict, he chose to die instead. Why is it then that we as Christians today fail to see our own death as a serious possibility for ushering in God's kingdom? Why do we argue for 'just war' when our savior so seemingly set the precedent for our socio-political action in his death? Yoder puts it like this, "Jesus' rebuke to the unseeing pair on the road to Emmaus was not that they had been looking for a kingdom and should not have been. Their fault is that, just like Peter at Caesarea Philippi, they were failing to see that the suffering of the Messiah is the inauguration of the kingdom."

'Leaving Babylon'

I almost forgot to explain my cheesy, semi-cliche blogger title, 'Leaving Babylon.' Babylon in the old and new testaments of scripture was a symbol of sin, injustice and despair. That having been said, the idea of leaving Babylon is probably self explanatory. As Christians, our earthly home is still Babylon, but we are no longer citizens of Babylon. We are aliens, strangers and outcasts in this land. While we may not be able to physically leave the city of Babylon, not at least without dying, we can leave behind Babylon's way of thinking, acting and injustice. By exchanging war for peace, hatred for love, injustice for justice, and cynicism for hope, I believe we can leave Babylon.

My new blog

Well, after sojourning from the blogging world for a while, I've decided to return. I feel like this might be a little different than my last one, so consider this first post the 'apologia' for my new writings.
First off, let me clarify what this blog is not. This is not personal journal or window into my everyday life. I question the motivation of people who publish their lives on the internet for the entire world to see. There are some things that should remain private.
This is not a place for me to complain and breed cynicism. I do not think that there is a place for cynicism within the Christian world view. Cynicism is despair, and we have exchanged despair for hope.
This is not a place for me to criticize the church, government or individuals. I may say critical things, but I will try not to without a viable, or biblical alternative. Jim Wallis points out that it is easy to protest, but alternatives are better.
This blog is a place where I will attempt to think publicly about various issues that effect my everyday life. For this reason, it will be a personal journal of sorts. People who know me know that I am interested in politics, so I will probably write on politics from time to time. I also plan on writing about new things I am learning and reading that I think could be a benefit to others. I hope that things that I write inspire discussion, but most importantly thought. Finally, this goes without saying but, I am not an expert or a scholar so please be gracious.