Mediaboss Marketing

Let me tell you the story about how many politically progressive Christians came to think they were Anabaptists. (Im mainly talking about post-evangelical progressives rather than traditional mainline progressives.)

To recap, Ive made the argument that many progressive Christians believe they are Anabaptists when, in fact, they are Niebuhrians. This truth was exposed with the election of Donald Trump. The rise of Trump has politically energized progressive Christians in ways that are hard to reconcile with Anabaptist theology and practice. Again, this is no judgment of Anabaptist theology or of all the political activism of progressive Christians. Not at all. This is just a description of the disjoint between political theology and political praxis.

Most progressive Christians want to be politically engaged. Very much so. Especially with Donald Trump in office. But Anabaptist theology doesnt provide great theological scaffolding for much of that political activism. Thus my advice: Seek out and embrace a political theology that provides better theological support. To my eye, I think that theology is Reinhold Niebuhrs Christian realism.

But that raises a different question. Why did so many progressive Christians come to embrace Anabaptist theology in the first place?

Thats the story I want to tell you.

The story starts in 2003, with George W. Bush and the invasion of Iraq. Many progressive Christians mobilized against that war. At the time, social media was just exploding. Blogging was in its Golden Age. Twitter would show up in 2006, just in time for the 2007-2008 Presidential campaign where we debated the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, torture and Guantanamo Bay.

As these debates raged on social media, Anabaptist theology, with its criticisms of nationalism and war, became a powerful theological tool in the hands of progressive Christians to level indictments at the Bush administration.

In addition, emergent and post-evangelical expressions of Christianity were going strong. Many disaffected and disillusioned evangelicals were looking around for theological positions that critiqued how evangelicalism had been co-opted by politics. With its strong criticisms of Constantinianism, Anabaptist theology also fit that bill.

And so it was during these years that many progressive Christians, in using Anabaptist theology so effectively to critique the Bush administration and the politicization of evangelicalism, convinced themselves that they were Anabaptists.

But they werent Anabaptists, not really.

Why werent progressives Anabaptists? Two reasons.

First, theres more to Anabaptist theology than its peace witness. Anabaptist theology also espouses a robust ecclesiology, the church as the locus of life and political witness. This aspect of Anabaptist theology doesnt sit well with many progressive Christians, who would rather work as political activists than invest in the daily life of a local church. To be sure, many post-evangelical progressive Christians harbor nostalgia for the local church, memories of hymn sings, youth camps, vacation Bible school and pot luck casseroles. But at the end of the day, progressive Christians tend to think calling Congress, community organizing and marching in protests are the best ways to make the kingdom come on earth as it is in heaven.

Second, the robust ecclesiology of Anabaptist thought and practice works with a strong church-vs.-world distinction. This contrast has been famously captured by Stanley Hauerwas: The first task of the church is not to make the world more just but to make the world the world. In Anabaptist thought the church is set apart from the world, its goal to be a witness to the Powers by making a stark contrast between the kingdom of God and Babylon.

That negative view of the world has never sat well with progressives, who, being liberals, tend to have a very favorable view of the world, a view which sits behind their very open, inclusive, cosmopolitan, non-judgmental social ethic. Progressives want to embrace the world, they dont want to create a community that highlights the darkness and depravity of the world. For many post-evangelical progressives, a negative view of the world smacks of the judgmentalism they are fleeing from.

In short: During the Bush years, progressives used parts of Anabaptist theology to great effect. Progressive Christians denounced the evils of war, empire, nationalism and Constantinian Christianity. Progressive Christians were so effective in this critique that they started to think they actually were Anabaptists. But progressive Christians never really were Anabaptists. They were post-evangelicals who became Democrats.

Richard Beck is professor and department chair of psychology at Abilene Christian University. He is the author ofUnclean: Meditations on Purity, Hospitality and Mortality.Richards area of interest be it research, writing or blogging is on the interface of Christian theology and psychology, with a particular focus on how existential issues affect Christian belief and practice. He blogs atExperimental Theology, where this post originally appeared.

Excerpt from:
How did political progressives think they were Anabaptists? - Mennonite World Review

Theres a famous story about how Lana Turner was discovered: sitting in a Hollywood drugstore, sipping a soda. Next thing you know, shes one of the most sought after It girls of the 1940s.

There may be some key details left out of that account, but one can assume, at least in theory, that it makes sense.

What doesnt necessarily make sense? The recent fever pitch over 78-year-old Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., who has been adopted by a new generation as Auntie Maxine.

Waters has spent more than four decades in public service but its only now that shes become the political crush for young progressives. Thats due to her fierce attacks on President Trump and his new administration. While other politicians practice staid sound bites, Waters is extemporaneous and unpredictable. But usually her message is along the lines of Impeach 45!

That has made her deep raspy voice and withering facial expressions almost inescapable recently.

Although shes been a staple of cable news shows on CNN and MSNBC, Waters popularity and reach have surpassed the traditional political audience and grabbed hold of young left-leaning hearts and minds.

In the past month alone, shes appeared at the MTV Music Awards where she basked and curtsied in the roaring applause of a standing ovation that went on and on. Shes been featured in the Huffington Post, Teen Vogue, Ebony and The Washington Posts Cape Up podcast.

But it was probably a January article by humor columnist R. Eric Thomas on Elle.com that catapulted the septuagenarian to stardom with the selfie-taking set and led to her new, familial nickname.

Apparently, Thomas, who has a Lana Turner story of his own he was hired by the magazine after being discovered on Twitter was home watching C-SPAN, when Waters serendipitously appeared on the screen.

Thomas had found a new muse.

If you havent seen the performance that launched hundreds of thousands of tweets, take 30 seconds to watch the whole thing. But if you dont have the time, heres what you need to know: Waters had left an intelligence briefing with then-FBI Director James Comey. She was not pleased with what she had heard.

Yes, can I help you? What do you want? is how she addressed reporters.

Thomas cant help laughing as he recalls watching it unfold in real time. I was like, Who is this person? he said, She walks into a press conference like theyre already on her last nerve.

He was delighted, flabbergasted and inspired and that led to this unforgettable paragraph:

I have never seen anything like this outside of a family reunion. Rep. Waters is definitely that auntie who got rich selling Avon and doesnt really like your father. Or any of these low-rent people. But you sit by her so that she can stage-whisper critiques with a mouth full of potato salad.

So, technically, the words Auntie Maxine may never have been strung together by Thomas, but he takes full credit anyway.

Its on my business card! he bragged.

Asheya Warren is among Waters legion of fans, and says the congresswomans frank style and shade-throwing skills are what appeal to her.

Its the way she says what she says, Warren said. Older women like Waters get a pass to freely speak their minds, added the 30-year-old.

Once a woman is over 60, she said, Youre able to say whatever you want to, whenever you want to. My mom does it, her two sisters do it, my grandmother did it, and again, thats why that Auntie moniker is so well received.

Waters is thrilled by it all.

I am surprised and honored to be so enthusiastically supported by millennials, she said by phone from her office in Los Angeles.

She says millennials though she may be a little generous with that designation stop her on the street, at the mall and in restaurants, with the same cry. Auntie Maxine! Oh my God, can I take a picture? they squeal in excitement.

Waters recognizes shes filling a void left by todays professional politicians, who are sometimes afraid to state their genuine opinions, fearing a backlash from constituents or the potential loss of their seat. But Im not afraid of that, she said defiantly. I will speak my mind.

And if that makes you want to call her Auntie, be ready. She likes giving hugs.

Original post:
'Auntie' Maxine: The Young Progressives' Political Crush of the Moment - KQED

RESISTANCE IS AN ACTION--Why do a broad range of factions -- that we commonly label as liberal -- continue ad nauseum to content themselves with only reporting the latest irrational, depressing and demoralizing behavior of our profit-driven corporate-controlled American government?

At the same time these liberals content themselves with preaching a rational alternative for what is possible to people who already agree with them. They seem to purposefully avoid any action designed to make their progressive ideas become the basis for more rational actions that could be taken by the government.

But of course, the liberal's exclusively verbal and intellectual take or, if you will, game -- never seems to reach a mainstream American audience that still doesn't have a clue as to what is going on in the programmed dissipation of the American dream of social equity.

What if the Amy Goodmans, the Robert Reichs, the Noam Chomskys, the Chris Hedges, the Henry Louis Gates, and other insightful liberals took a page from Martin Luther King's playbook? In dealing with a segregated public transit system in Selma, Alabama, instead of merely reporting the ever increasing outrageous assaults on our democracy, Dr. King proactively posited a well-organized plan of action that those in power could no longer ignore with impunity. Ironically, it is my belief that such organized, concerted action would be far easier and would accomplish far more if it were adopted by these current leaders.

King understood that a public transportation system in Selma that relied on a 70% African American ridership could no longer send these riders to the back of the bus -- unless those riders and their supporters allowed them to continue doing so. The bus boycott that ensued was based on a simple economic premise: either truly integrate this public transportation system or our well-organized boycott will bankrupt it. When push came to shove, the fear of looming bankruptcy of public transit in Selma trumped good old fashion publicly sanctioned racism.

If we could apply this same principle (based on the fundamental democratic idea that majority rules) to changing the de facto segregated public education system that still exists in Los Angeles sixty-three years after Brown vs. Board of Education established that "separate but equal... is inherently unequal," then we could also stop the now unimpeded move toward corporate privatization of public education for profit and the further dumbing of America.

Like the Selma bus boycott, a boycott of still segregated and quantifiably inferior public schools might go something like this:

-Students do not go to school, but rather go to classes that are organized in churches and other public buildings, where they are taught by retired or other qualified teachers -- many of whom were themselves removed from their teaching careers based on fabricated charges.

- However, the students regular teachers would show up at their regular schools and the school district would still be required to pay them.

- But since the students aren't there and schools receive their money from the state and federal government based on in-seat average daily attendance, now, like in Selma, you've finally created negative financial consequences that the corrupt folks in power in schools, government, and corporations can no longer ignore as they do now.

Liberals would finally make the news by doing something that can no longer be ignored by corrupt corporate interests and their respective media vassals. In addition, this action would serve to educate what has been, up until now, an unaware and discriminated against majority as to the meaning behind the phrase majority rules.

In order to organize an effective action-oriented anti-oligarchy opposition from the Left, wouldn't it be relevant to wonder just how many degrees of internet separation there are among the still silent majority in this internet age? Would people who receive a solicitation to join a well-organized public school boycott that has a clear shot of succeeding be more likely to get involved if Matt Damon or John Stewart -- whose mothers are teachers were to reach out and ask them to do so? And wouldn't they reach out to their respective networks to get people onboard?

Use the list below to create, add to, and share in creating our own 2017 Selma bus-boycott-type organization necessary to bring to an end to the criminality that is destroying our society.

What we have been experiencing up until now has been the end product of a war started long ago under Reagan to dismantle public education for profit. We have witnessed the further dumbing down of America so that "alternative facts" and irrational policies could then go unchallenged by undereducated Americans who have been subjected to this system for the last 40 years and are no longer capable of understanding what is going on and what will be its Orwellian conclusion.

In pursuit of this end, I would argue that the 1st Amendment right to freedom of association -- even virtually -- is the most important civil right we have if we are to bring about measurable change in bad actions and policies. This would make all of our other rights possible to achieve.

With the Internet, the facilitating association has become more doable. But we must overcome the purposefully nurtured hopeless lethargy that has made the majority think they are the minority. Our truth is nowhere to be found as reported in the mainstream corporate media.

What follows is, for starters, an initial contact information list of some who have already shown that they know better. If you can think of others or have a better way of reaching out and networking, add to this list and share what you do with all of us in the comments section below. Remember, most of us presently remain unaware of just how powerful we could be in organizing effective opposition to the growing dangerous alternative reality we are forced to live under:

Reverend Dr. William Barber info@naacpnc.org9196824700

The Black Star Project Address: 3509 S King Dr #2B, Chicago, IL 60653 Phone: (773) 285-9600 http://www.blackstarproject.org

Noam Chomsky chomsky@mit.edu

Stephen Colbert

Matt Damon

Ava DuVernay contact Mercedes Cooper mercedes@arraynow.com

Professor Henry Louis Gates gates@harvard.edu 617.496.5468

Amy Goodman https://www.democracynow.org/contact(212) 431-9090

Chris Hedges hedgesscoop@aol.com

Rachel Maddow Rachel@msnbc.com

Professor Diane Ravitch gardendr@gmail.com

Robert Reichreich@commoncause.org

Michael Rezendes, The Boston Globe 135 Morrissey Boulevard Boston, MA 02125 Tel: 617-929-3047 Cell: 617-763-1458 Fax: 617-929-2019

John Stewart

And ... Lenny Isenberg Leonard.Isenberg@gmail.com

(Leonard Isenberg is a Los Angeles observer and a contributor to CityWatch. He was a second generation teacher at LAUSD and blogs at perdaily.com.Leonard can be reached at Lenny@perdaily.com) Edited for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

-cw

Read more from the original source:
Advisory for Liberals: Stop Talking and Start Acting - City Watch

Classic liberals are generous with their own money. Modern-day liberals are generous with other peoples money.

In an opinion piece published by USA Today, Democrat senators Chris Coons and Jeff Merkley demonstrate that they are modern-day liberals.

It is the opinion of Coons and Merkley that the U.S. government must use federal tax dollars to help non-Americans who live outside of the USA even when it is not vital to the USA for the U.S. government to do so.

Ah, but according to Coons and Merkley, it is vital to the USA.

Hogwash!

It is ridiculous for the U.S. government to borrow money to keep the U.S. government functioning and then to give away that money to foreigners in foreign lands in order to rescue some of those foreigners from chronic problems that those foreign lands are notorious for.

Apparently, it has escaped Coons and Merkleys attention that it is the job of the U.S. government to take care of U.S. citizens, and the latter arent properly taken care of if the former burdens the latter with a massive national debt.

With a national debt approaching $20 trillion and a federal budget deficit approaching $600 billion, U.S. citizens cant afford to have their federal tax dollars given away in such a manner when private charities are capable of meeting the needs of foreigners that Coons and Merkley are so concerned about.

Indeed, private charities are providing the foreign aid that Coons and Merkley are concerned about.

So, why dont Coons and Merkley ask Americans to donate to the charities that are doing what Coons and Merkley want done?

Could this be the reason why?

That above-posted graphic is supported by an August 2013 Huffington Post report titled One Thing Red States Do Better Than Blue States. Here is the first paragraph of that report:

People who live in deeply religious regions of the country the solid-red states of the Bible Belt and Utah give more of their income to charity than those who dont. Of the top 10 most generous states, according to a Chronicle of Philanthropy study based on itemized charitable contributions among people who made at least $50,000, nine voted for Mitt Romney in 2012.

I cannot vouch for the accuracy of the above-posted statistics by WalletHub and the Huffington Post. However, if those statistics are accurate, then perhaps they explain why Coons and Merkley are modern-day liberals because they dont expect blue-state residents to be classic liberals.

Read the original:
A Tale of Two Modern-Day Liberals - Wizbang (blog)

Liberal activists are criticizing RepublicanRep. Rodney Frelinghuysenover what they call the congressmans intimidation of one of his constituents.

Frelinghuysen sent a campaign fundraising letter to a board member of Lakeland Bank in his district in which he says,But lets be clear that there are organized forces both national and local who are already hard at work to put a stop to an agenda of limited government, economic growth, stronger national security.

In a handwritten footnote at the bottom of the letter, Frelinghuysen wrote, P.S. One of the ringleaders works in your bank,WNYC reported.

Saily Avelenda, who worked as vice president and assistant general counsel for the bank, said she resigned partially because of Frelinghuysens letter.

Ithought my Congressman put them in a situation, and put me in a really bad situation as the constituent, and used his name, used his position and used his stationery to try to punish me," said Avelenda, an activist with the liberal group NJ 11th for Change.

NJ 11th for Change also criticized the congressmans letter, saying in a statement, We are outraged and alarmed by Representative Frelinghuysens intimidating action against an ordinary constituent, as reported this morning by NPR,the group said in a statement. WNYC is an NPR affiliate.

Frelinghuysens office directed questions to his campaign, which issued a written statement saying,The Congressman wrote a brief and innocuous note at the bottom of a personal letter in regard to information that had been reported in the media. He was in no way involved in any of the bank's business and is unaware of any of the particulars about this employee's status with the bank.

But Democratic challenger Mikie Sherrill blasted the New Jersey Republican.

Frelinghuysen has gone from simply refusing to meet with his constituents and telling them to back off, to threatening constituents who are exercising their freedom of speech, he said in a statement.

Get breaking news alerts and more from Roll Call on your iPhone or your Android.

View original post here:
Liberals Criticize Frelinghuysen's 'Intimidation' of Activist - Roll Call