in this post i want to continue with this theme of how class and not religion and not theology often determines points of view in the culture war.

the basic idea here is that how we were raised, how we have learned to view the world -- what lenses we were given to see it - what values we obtained from our education or lack thereof, our family background, our manners, refinement and grooming, or lack thereof, all of this gives us our own particular group Zeitgeist.

another way to say this is to say that very often what we see as the particulars of the kingdom of God comes not from holy writ, much less from jesus or the holy spirit. no what passes for "truth" for our group is often based upon our social class.

peter l. berger has written extensively on this subject, and it's his thought that i am following closely. he writes:

"Precisely the issues on which Christians divide today are those that are part of the current class struggle and of the Kulturkampf that symbolizes it. One of the easiest empirical procedures to determine very quickly what the agenda of the new class is at any given moment is to look up the latest pronouncements of the National Council of Churches and, to a somewhat lesser extent, of the denominational organizations of mainline Protestantism.

Conversely, virtually point by point, the Christian New Right represents the agenda of the business class (and of other strata interested in material production) with which the new class is locked in battle. What is more, while undoubtedly there are religious reasons for the upsurge of right-leaning evangelicalism, much of it can in all likelihood be explained as a reaction against the power grab of the new class. In that, of course, evangelicals are part of a much wider reaction, the political crystallization of which (temporary or not -- that remains to be seen) was the major event of the 1980 national elections. As to the reasons for this alignment of different religious bodies, they could not be simpler: the main reason, of course, is the class character of the respective constituencies of these bodies."

this article appeared in 1981, but tell me it doesn't explain, for example, the current debate on whether to give money to the big three auto makers or not?

anyway, my the point here is that we must be very careful not to entangle the kingdom with the latest political agenda, either from the left or the right. the kingdom must be a-political or post-political or even anti-political, but it must no longer be politically driven. this is easy to say, but very difficult to accomplish.

Tags: culture, class

well, i'm back, sort of...and not a moment too soon, apparently. it seems momentous things are afoot in the culture and i have yet to pen one word about it. frankly, i was amazed that american was willing to elect our first african-american as president. i never thought it would happen, at least not in my life-time. but it did. and i was simply amazed at how this one event has brought hope to our struggling country.

as you know if you read my thoughts, i do not write about politics. this is so i can criticize all sides. but several things happened to me while i was convalescing that, taken together, has given me pause.

i re-watched ken burn's documentary on the civil war. i am a life-long student of this war, but this time i was taken by one of the commentators statement about abraham lincoln. she criticized him roundly, saying that his early views on slavery -- some free states and some slave states -- just couldn't be excused as him being a man of his times, especially since there were others during this same time who saw slavery as evil and wrong and the actual reason for the war, and not union.

i attended a musical at a baptist university. seated next to me was an elderly gentleman whom i did not know. before the production began he proceeded to explain to me his work against california's proposition 8 -- a ban on on gay marriage. (to be honest, i do not understand all the banter back and forth that goes with this issue. i think understand the religious argument against gay marriage, but how just the fact of gay marriage itself, how this attacks marriage in general, like it somehow attacks what my woman and i have, i just don't get.) anyway, after he bragged up his involvement, this elderly gentleman said this: "i just don't know what going to happen with this guy in the whitehouse. i think we're probably going to have a revolution.” now, why he was against the new president i did not pursue, (i could care less-- this is american after all) it could be any number of things. but to surmise that violence was in the offing because of his election was a curious reactions indeed.

i pull these two things together because we must remember that we are not only people of our own times (re:generation), but we are people of culture. that is, what we consider as clear and secure as holy writ or our next vote, is often nothing more that a result of class. said another way, a good sociologist can with, astounding precision, guess where a person will come down on questions of the culture-war by asking a few simple questions concerning background and class. this should give us pause the next time we are sure of our interpretation of the text, or the meaning of a national vote because our ideas may be wrong and on the wrong side of history, no matter how sure we are, and neither class nor generations is any excuse.

Tags: culture, class