Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Progressive Christian
The righteous

The righteous

Last updated on: November 10, 2006 at 7:24 pm by Fred Clark

316 Comments

The righteous 2006-11-10T19:24:38-05:00 Fred Clark

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Both Patrick Nielsen Hayden and tristero have noted the post-election sermonette from Jim Wallis in which he claims that Tuesday was somehow "A defeat for the religious right and the secular left."

In this election, both the Religious Right and the secular Left were defeated, and the voice of the moral center was heard. …

It is clear from the election results that moderate, and some conservative, Christians — especially evangelicals and Catholics — want a moral agenda that is broader than only abortion and same-sex marriage. Various exit polls showed a shift of 6 percent to 16 percent fewer evangelicals and Catholics supporting Republican candidates than in 2004. Poverty, the war in Iraq, strengthening families, and protecting the environment are all moral values. And many Americans this year voted all of their values.

Ugh. Jim's intent here seems to be his usual riff, trying to convince "conservative Christians — especially evangelicals and Catholics" to embrace a "broader" moral agenda than the usual questions of genital politics. That's a worthy effort, and Jim has my gratitude and respect for his decades-long faithfulness in pursuit of it (although I reserve the right to disagree with his assumption that conservative Christians are right about those genital matters).

The problem here comes from his decision that this argument for a broader moral agenda would be more persuasive with a bit of Dick-Morris style triangulation, using a strawman "secular Left" as his whipping boy.

In response, let's turn to today's first Gospel reading, from Mark 9:

"Teacher," said John, "we saw a man driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us."

"Do not stop him," Jesus said. "No one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, for whoever is not against us is for us."

Poor John. "We told him to stop, because he was not one of us." Brilliant move, that. It shows what comes of treating Jesus like a brand name — you end up siding with the demons.

Jesus is all about driving out demons, healing the sick, feeding the poor. Yet somehow his followers, like John and Jim, tend to forget that this is what matters most. We see others doing this same work and we start defending our turf. We start acting like corporate attorneys, filing cease and desist orders to protect the brand name or to try to collect some kind of franchising fee. We see people who are "not one of us" doing good and, perversely, we tell them to stop.

Jesus isn't interested in franchise fees. He's interested in casting out demons. If someone else outside of our little clique decides to pitch in, "Do not stop him," Jesus says. "Whoever is not against us is for us."

Some might read this story, with it's refrain of works done "in my name," and decide that it still offers some defense for parochial ownership of good works. Those bogeymen of the "secular Left," after all, aren't doing good in Jesus' name, so maybe it's OK to tell them to stop.

If anybody wants to go there, I'd refer them to today's second Gospel reading, this one from Matthew 25. This is Jesus talking:

"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'

"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'

"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'"

Jesus commends "the righteous." What makes them "the righteous"? They fed the hungry, welcomed the stranger, clothed the naked, cared for the sick and imprisoned. And — this is explicit — they had no idea who this Jesus guy was. "I was hungry and you fed me," Jesus says. And the righteous say, "I'm sorry, have we met? We fed a lot of hungry people, but your face doesn't ring a bell …"

Jim Wallis is correct that, "Poverty, the war in Iraq, strengthening families and protecting the environment are all moral values." But he's wrong to imply that only those with a particular religious brand name can legitimately hold such values.

Jim's clumsy triangulation is disingenuous. He knows better — he has worked in ecumenical and interfaith coalitions, and in partnership with secular saints of every stripe. He has done a lot of good, working alongside others who have also done a lot of good — people who share his commitments to peace and justice and all that stuff but who don't necessarily share his particular sectarian motivation for those commitments.

I get that this can be confusing at first for those of us who share a particular religious motivation. You set yourself to the task because the Bible Says So, or because you're trying to obey Jesus, or because you love Jesus, or because you're so filled with Jesus' love that you can't help but share it with others (that's intended as a progression). And then you find yourself working shoulder-to-shoulder with people who have never given Jesus a second thought.

"So if you don't share my particular motives," you ask your new partners, "then why are you here?"

"Funny," they say. "I was about to ask you the same question."

Confusing at first, but then exhilarating. And liberating. And empowering. There is, after all, a lot of work to do, and unexpected allies should always be welcome.

They're driving out demons. They're feeding the hungry, welcoming strangers, clothing the naked, caring for the sick. They're good people — "the righteous." Do not stop them. Whoever is not against us is for us.

UPDATE: The above is mainly a response to Jim's goofy triangulation — religious progressives trying to court religious conservatives by echoing their condemnation of the supposed "secular humanist" conspiracy — but the other premise of his piece, the supposed swing of evangelical and Catholic voters, isn't factually true either. Kevin Drum sums up the reality:

In the the overall national vote, Democrats picked up 5 percentage points compared to 2004.

Among Catholics they picked up 6 points.

Among weekly churchgoers they picked up 3 points.

Among white evangelicals they picked up 3 points.

There's just no story here unless you look at individual races. Nationally, turnout among religious voters was as high as it was in 2004, and their shift toward Democrats was either the same or a bit less than the overall national shift. I'd love to be able to say that Democrats made some disproportionate inroads in this group, since it's such an important part of the GOP base, but they didn't. People need to quit saying it.

evangelicals

Previous Post

November 10, 2006

L.B.: When the pawn ...

Next Post

November 14, 2006 All you need is

Recent Comments

316 Comments | Leave a Comment

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category class warfare evangelicals Iraq Left Behind Mammon music Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What was Paul's original name?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Saul Levi Simon Matthias