Richard Land's Man Crush & The New Republic
Apparently, the folks at The New Republic are familiar with Sir Big Daddy Weave.
Michelle Cottle, senior editor of The New Republic has picked up a bit of my man-crush lingo in her latest post appropriately entitled Richard Land's Man Crush. Check it out:
RICHARD LAND'S MAN CRUSH:While, as Chait points out, many social conservatives remain unconvinced of Fred Thompson's commitment to their cause, the Southern Baptist's Richard Land continues his tireless cheerleading for Big Daddy.
Even having talked to Land about Fred at some length a few months ago, I still don't understand this particular attraction. It's not as if Fred is the most conservative or the most religious or has the most irreproachable personal history of the GOP contenders.
My best guess is that Fred's appeal for Land is culture based--i.e., he is the only arguably top-tier Southerner in this race. Rich or poor, Southerners tend to be protective of our own, in part because we're sensitive to the fact that much of the rest of the country still looks down their noses at us as a bunch of racist, ass-backward, banjo-pickin' hicks.
Continue reading here.
For more on Richard - check out the blog by onemom (here and here) - a Southern Baptist who is ticked that Land has snubbed Mike Huckabee.
Onemom concludes:
What’s most important Mr. Land … money? Power? Or standing firm on our convictions - especially when there is a horse in this race that is a TRUE CONSERVATIVE, and not one who just came by those beliefs recently to achieve a political goal. You encourage Christians to vote their values in one breath, and then in the next you encourage us to make compromises in areas of conviction just to support candidates that you see as rich and powerful.
You have said that you think Mike Huckabee best represents the conservative Christian base, but that you won’t support him because you don’t think he can win. Well, Mr. Land - he can and will win, but it would be a whole lot easier if you followed your own instructions and voted your values. If you would pick up the banner for Mike Huckabee, the burden would be lighter.
Labels: Fred Thompson, Mike Huckabee, Richard Land
posted by Big Daddy Weave at 9:55 PM
11 Comments:
Yeah, yeah. When you make Andrew Sullivan, THEN we'll be impressed.
8:38 AM
Perhaps we should remember the religious left's mantra that separating faith from politics is a virute.
Land may be a convert, so applaud him.
3:24 PM
That's never been the mantra of the "Religious Left," Chuck.
James Dunn, Tony Campolo, and Jim Wallis have been mixing politics and religion since the early 1970's.
Baptist moderates and progressives have never advocated separating faith from politics. In fact, the only Baptists that would see such a strategy as a virtue would be pre-1979 Baptist fundamentalists...
5:02 PM
Big Daddy,
That's bull or donkey, one.
Jimmy Carter, of all people, was villified for describing himself as born again. (I wish he'd stick to that now, instead of endorsing other paths to God as well).
Just look at the further criticism of Jerry Falwell for organizing the Moral Majority instead of sticking to pastoring.
Just look at Americans United, BJC, and any number of "Christian" organizations whose mantra is to protect politics and policy from unwanted church influence.
Sorry for misspelling "virtue." Maybe that's what confused you.
9:13 AM
Chuck,
You're just plain ole wrong.
James Dunn authored a "Politics: A Guidebook for Christians" in 1970. Dunn's book taught Christians how to mix religion and politics. Surely you've heard of God's Politics by Jim Wallis?? Wallis has been preaching mixing politics and religion for decades as well.
Your statement that the religious left's mantra that separating faith from politics is a virtue just has no basis for support. Progressive Christian leaders have been mixing politics and religion since the days of the Civil Rights Movement.
Forget that tidbit of history?
The mission of the BJC is to uphold the Religion clauses of the First Amendment (etc.). Consequently, the BJC has never argued that faith should be separated from politics. Duh.
While faith should influence politics, Dunn and others have argued that religious groups and organizations should not sell their souls to one political party. The Moral Majority sought to control the Republican Party. There is a big difference between power/control and mere influence...
11:43 PM
Separation of church and state is not and never has been about separating one's faith from politics. That may be the theology of traditional Lutheran "2 kingdoms" views--which came into Baptist life in the South because of our embarrassment at endorsing both slavery and segregation. We accused abolitionists and desegregationists of "mixing religion and politics."
But the early Baptists, like the Anabaptists before them, insisted that church and state be separate precisely so that the church would be FREE to offer a prophetic word to the state. As the Hebrew prophets found, it's hard to be prophetic on the payroll of the government (or the corporation, for that matter). The court prophets were all false prophets--God had to speak through shepherds like Amos and discredited priests like Jeremiah--not to mention a certain carpenter from Nazareth who didn't have the proper rabbinic credentials.
It is the INSTITUTIONS of church and state which must be separate. As Roger Williams knew, God has established a "hedge or wall between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world."
9:42 AM
amen, michael. well put.
12:32 PM
Big Daddy,
You're correct that there's a big difference between power/control and mere influence--that difference is winning rather than losing.
Why would one have the objective to influence rather than control when it comes to politics--or football, for that matter?
Whenever you choose a political party, or a football team, to support, you desire it to win and the opposition to lose.
Dunn and the organizations I mentioned are very protective of the political and policy. But the result has been that the progressive church has been influenced by a political party to liberalize doctrine and values to meet the party's liberal platform.
10:21 PM
Wow, so it's all about control, is it? And all about winning? And here I thought Christians were taught to die, to lay down their lives and to serve. The whole pattern that Chuck describes is one which Jesus declared, "Not so among you."
If ever one wanted an example of the way the Religious Right has completely misunderstood Christianity, Chuck's comment is it.
7:46 AM
Michael,
With all due respect, you seem unable to distinguish Jesus' instructions to his disciples and us about how to act toward each other as members of the family of faith from how to boldly be the salt and light which breaks through the tastelessness and darkness of the secular world--yes, to the point of peaceful power and victory in the political arenas.
I know this inability is not due to a lack of "smarts." I think it's due the high degree of comfort you feel with liberal politics and policy fitting your re-shaped theology.
10:30 AM
Big Daddy,
I must admit you do have Richard's number.
cb
11:34 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home