Confounding Conservatives and Christians

February 21, 2008, 12:30 pm; posted by
Filed under Articles, David, Featured  | 6 Comments

Michael Hiestand has a column in Monday’s USA Today that offers commentary on what happened in TV sports over the weekend. It’s broken down into various little blurbs, and Charles Barkley was the subject of one snippet this week.

Commenting on his plan to run for Alabama governor in 2014, Barkley said, “Every time I hear the word ‘conservative,’ it makes me sick to my stomach, because they’re really just fake Christians.” After comparing Barkley’s comments with the recent blatantly anti-Christian remarks made by Dana Jacobson — and noting her two week suspension — Hiestand observes that Barkley “doesn’t seem to be saddled with any limits” regarding his on-air comments. Hiestand seems to note an incongruity, but the real incongruity is actually created by his comments.

Barkley made comments about conservatives, not Christians; Jacobson insulted Christians, Barkley insulted conservatives. If I call a man a fat pig, I am insulting the man, not the pig. The fact that people view these two terms as interchangeable — confounding the two to our detriment — is one of my chief concerns with the conservative movement.

We Christians are in danger of allowing ourselves to be defined by a political movement. We are no longer known for our steadfast adherence to the Apostles’ Creed so much as to the Conservative Party line. We must hate immigrants and love firearms; we must view every increased function of government as intrusive and unnecessary; we are sworn to demand that taxes always be lowered and never raised — even in the face of a costly war and a burgeoning military that we are sworn to hold fast as an inalienable right.

Suddenly we are not conservatives, and thereby not really Christians, if we think that healthcare has become so outrageously expensive that it is impossible to afford — and so perhaps a national healthcare plan is needed. Apparently, a man cannot possibly be a Christian while supporting amnesty for illegal immigrants, or tighter controls on firearms, like those used in at least four school shootings over the last ten days across America.

It seems a man can’t be conservative, and thereby Christian, unless he supports an amendment to the Constitution banning gay marriage. But one can oppose homosexuality without being in favor of altering the Constitution every time someone burns a flag or marries a — homosexual.

Rather than insulting Christians, perhaps Barkley was actually serving as an apologist, a defender of the faith, helping the world to see that the two things are not so interchangeable as they seem.


Comments

6 Comments to “Confounding Conservatives and Christians”

  1. Steve on February 21st, 2008 2:00 pm

    And yet you are (or were) a Huckabee supporter, backing the candidate most likely, by far, to blur the lines between religious belief and political policy.

    It’s true that Barkley insulted conservative Christians, not all Christians. But Barkley is an apologist for Christianity like I am an apologist for Air Transat, the worst airline in the world. Both of us spout vague vitriol based on ignorance, fueled by the actions of a very small minority of the group we belittle.

    I think your reaction to this story is based more on your own feelings about Christianity and conservatism than what Barkley said, or what is actually true in reality. Hiestand is right: Barkley says what he wants, without any discernible limits. And blowhard Barkley is, as always, both rude and wrong: insulting the sincerity of someone’s religious beliefs based on their political positions is a classic example of why he has no chance of being elected to any office anywhere.

    The problem with your argument is that not only do many Christians disagree on these issues, but that I’ve never met any of even average intelligence who actually believe that there’s a “Christian position” on these issues, let alone one that needs to be enforced. Yet you suggest that some equate conservatism with Christianity, to the level of questioning the faith of those who disagree. As the guy who wrote at length about Mike Huckabee’s departure from my political beliefs, without once questioning the truth of his belief in Christ, I wonder just who it is you’re talking about.

    Part of this may be a North/South thing. But as far as I believe you are correct that Christians and conservatives should not be viewed interchangeably, the Rev. Mike Huckabee and his quixotic quest for a Texas miracle does you no favors.

  2. Mike J on February 22nd, 2008 11:44 am

    Steve–I tend to agree with you. There is a whole subgroup of people, and a whole genre of literature, saying that the “conventional” Christian wisdom these days is bound up inextricably with the Republican party.

    I have grown more politically conservative in the last few years, and I believe that is in part motivated by my Christian faith. I have come to believe that small government is most favorable to the spread of the gospel and the flourishing of the church, in part because of the disastrous big government that surrounded the early Christians.

    But I have never equated that move with the Republican party, and I’m critical of the Republican party when it becomes the party of big government. Not everyone who is Christian and conservative is a knuckle-dragger incapable of distinguishing religion and political philosophy; some of us are Christian and conservative, and able and willing to discuss it reasonable with others who are Christian and liberal.

  3. David on February 23rd, 2008 12:01 pm

    My issue was very narrow in scope and remains valid and unassailed by you fine gentelmen. What I took from the article was a clear example of the two terms being confounded by a member of the media. I then used it to comment on the larger perception problem we have in America.

    Newt Gingerich (one of our shining examples of Conservativism who was in the hospital in Atlanta having his first wife sign divorce papers as she was dying from cancer so he could marry his second wife—the one he cheated on with an aide while leading the Conservative revolution in Washington) spoke on Sean Hannity’s show the other day about the need for Conservatives to distinguish themselves from Republicans. I in turn believe that it is vital that we distinguish ourselves from Conservatives.

    Newt Gingerich represents my opinions in life as well as Charles Barkley speaks for you Steve. When Charles Barkely gets drunk and heaves a fellow bar patron through the window he has the sense to say “I ain’t no role model!”. Newt can live as ungodly a life as he wants and still aspires to speak for Christians in national circles. We need to distinguish ourselves from the conservative movement.

  4. David on February 23rd, 2008 4:48 pm

    Sorry Steve, I meant to answer your question “I wonder just who it is you’re talking about?” I was specifically talking about how the media (and the world) view us. If they use the terms interchangeably, which was my only point, then we let them confound the two and I must as a Christian avow things that I do not believe. I have not made this about how we view each other (or sanctioning what others believe) although I think that is a valid endeavor. Jude writes to the church and exhorts them to “earnestly contend for the faith that was once delivered unto the saints” and we do have an obligation to dispute and test what we believe among ourselves to weed out errors.
    During this primary season several issues have been brought up to show that a candidate is (or isn’t) a true conservative and some of those things presented as being necessary to achieving the rank of a full spectrum conservative are, in my opinion, incompatible with Christianity (and even Reagan Conservatism).
    You discounted McCain’s conservative credentials based on the fact that he “supports amnesty for illegal immigrants; (and) favors bringing enemy combatant detainees into the United States, thus granting them constitutional rights;” Those may be compatible with Conservatism, and please believe that I am in no way shooting you the messenger by referencing your quote, but to support those two things (in my opinion) is to reject helping the poor among us and to sanction torture— making Conservatism incompatible with Christianity. Not only that, but Reagan is the one who enacted the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act granting amnesty to 2.7 million illegal immigrants making it incompatible with Reaganism.
    The other issue I mentioned, which is morally unacceptable to me, (one which I have never heard you defend) is the position that we should not attempt to place any more controls on firearms. 4 more school shootings in a period of 8 days this month and we still don’t believe that we have a problem? “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people” is wearing thin. Cars don’t kill people either but people sure kill a lot of people with cars, thus the various laws and regulations to control who can drive what and under what conditions. It is why a boy faces restrictions on driving an automobile but not riding his bicycle. No one ever drove drunk or distracted and slammed his bike into a crowded bus killing half a dozen people. Let’s admit that some things are more dangerous than others and should be more tightly regulated.

  5. Steve on February 24th, 2008 1:05 am

    Aren’t you confounding Christianity and conservatism when you say Newt somehow aspires to speak for Christians? Has he ever said that’s his goal?

    I’m fine with Christians making it clear that Christianity and conservatism are not the same things. But I don’t really think the world is out there judging all Christians to be conservatives, not with the mainline denominations’ push to ordain homosexuals, among other things.

    The list you quote of mine was not why McCain wasn’t conservative — it was why I didn’t support him in the primary. I wrote an article about Huckabee’s lack of conservatism, and it didn’t mention immigration. I didn’t talk about torture, and it’s a completely different issue from Guantanamo. Keeping people who have fought us in Afghanistan and Iraq in an overseas base to avoid giving them constitutional rights and trials in US courts is not the same thing as torturing them. Not even close.

    I disagree with you on immigration; I am undecided on the use of torture in certain emergency situations; I have no strong opinion on gun control, but oppose most further restrictions because they will only affect people who are already obeying the laws. But just as I don’t believe there is one Christian position on any of these three issues, I strongly disagree with the notion that they are somehow incompatible with Christianity. You seem to extend your argument too far and suggest that not only need not Christians be conservative, but that somehow they should be compelled not to be. I beg to differ.

  6. David on February 25th, 2008 9:40 am

    My point about Newt is that “IF” we do not distinguish ourselves he becomes a representative for both.

    Keeping the detainees overseas is not torture, it facilitates torture by removing civilian oversight and allowing no protections.

    I was not using you as my sole source on what is and isn’t conservative I just quoted one of your comments about who is or isn’t a “full spectrum conservative” and the rest is from all the comments that have been made throughout the primaries from various people.

Leave a comment!