|
of course christianity--even evangelical protestantism--is more complex than the right would like to pretend. i have been really pretty amazed at the extent to which a very particular variant of christianity--this bizarre fire and brimstone christianity motored by resentment you see floating about in tv land--managed to co-opt the label christianity for itself, that it was able for any amount to time to claim that it and it alone represented the entirety of this complex religion. most amazing to me is the degree to which what passes for christianity in the context of the american political right manages to evacuate the central messages of christ in the gospel, which have to do with the dignity of the poor, compassion, etc.--pretty much the basis for the objections to bush/rovbe outlined by the calvin faculty/students.
what i find strange in the above is the claims that concern "the christian left"--these positions, outlined by folk at calvin who oppose the bushvisit, are central to the new testament, would seem to me central to any reading of its books--i dont really understand how the "emergence" of the central elements of christ's message can be construed as the rise of a political left within the christian political movement.
what is even more bizarre to me is that folk further to the right politically, who claim the name christian for themselves, and who claim to rely on a literal interpretation of the bible, manage to erase these central tenants of the gospels which they claim to defend. i am surprised that the far right political version of christianity is not thoroughly offensive to most christians, representing a basic gutting of the basis of their beliefs.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|