Like lambs to slaughter

At first blush, the writings and sentiments of Brian McLaren appear indistinguishable from those of his graceless co-blogger, Jim Wallis. There is the thoughtless tendency to conflate personal ethics with foreign and domestic policy. One finds the polemical and misleading denunciations of the Iraq War and other fronts of the War on Terror. The stunning hubris is on display -- we Sojourner folks rise above labels, and we defy your silly attempts to confine us in any traditional category because we're doing something BIG! And, of course, the opportunism is patent. For only $21.99 you can buy Mr. McLaren's new book and join the movement that (did he fail to mention?) is REALLY BIG!

Largely absent from McLaren's writings is the calumny element, the unfortunate tendency that Wallis and so many of his disciples demonstrate to substitute defamation for argument. Maybe it's McLaren's years in the ministry. Maybe he simply does not suffer from Wallis' evident inferiority complex. Whatever the reason, McLaren comes across in his writings as... well, likeable.

Really. McLaren seems like the type of guy with whom I would love to grab coffee and discuss the merits of Francis Schaeffer's denunciation of Thomas Aquinas. (In my view, Schaeffer's condemnation of Aquinas was the seed of intellectual discord of which evangelicals are now reaping the toxic fruit, but that's another post.) He seems almost reasonable and eminently affable. One is left with the impression of a pastor who genuinely cares not only for his flock but also for oppressed women in Saudi Arabia and (perhaps) even corporate lobbyists on K Street. Today he even praises President Bush for the administration's beneficial effect upon Africa.

But, like Wonder Bread, McLaren is at most 50% substance. Worse, he slips into Wallisian rhetoric from time to time. One begins to feel uneasy when one reads this in McLaren's review of E.J. Dionne's new book: "Until religious people can demonstrate an ability to bring their faith into politics in a responsible, respectful, civil, unifying, and charitable way, [secular people] have every right to be suspicious." Did he just throw us under the bus? Yes. Yes, he did. One's unease anneals into downright distaste when McLaren accuses conservative Christians of having a "polarizing, combative, and narrow version of Christian faith."

Whatever the extent of McLaren's charms, he is employing them for ill. The substance of McLaren's policy arguments is disgraceful. His proposals would harm everyone: Americans and foreigners; Christians and non-Christians; rich and poor; Sojourners and Haliburton-lovin', faith-hijackin', puppy-killin', war-mongerin' theocrats.

McLaren advocates direct negotiations with Iran, including a request for Iran's assistance to stabilize Iraq. A request for help! Needless to say, McLaren ignores the overwhelming evidence that Iran is actively fomenting unrest in Iraq and that our troops are succeeding in stablizing Iraq despite Iran's nefarious meddling.

Consider this enlightened bit of economic analysis from Pastor McLaren: "We truly reach a new stage in our civic dialogue when more and more of us climb to a political and moral higher ground that acknowledges the twin downsides of both big business and big government." Peurile? Check. Astonishingly arrogant? Got that. Slanderous? Yup. That's the trifecta!

Throughout, McLaren founds his peurile arguments on theonomous syllogisms. In McLaren's view, the verse, "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God," is a foundational principle of foreign policy. As I have discussed before, this way of reasoning is juvenile. Evangelicals, Right or Left, ought to avoid it. But it is more than juvenile, it is dangerous. McLaren is dressing up the failed policies of the Left, the policies that injured the common good for long stretches of the Twentieth Century, as something new and exciting. And those lured into his movement by his charms are following along, excited and unaware.

Beneficiaries of evangelical conceit

Two groups of pharisees are prominent within evangelicalism. These two groups seem to be enjoying a disproportionate measure of influence this election cycle. And for better or worse, they have thrown their weight behind Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee.

The first group, what I call the Pat Robertson Know-Nothings, have for years embarassed serious, thoughtful evangelicals with their inflated rhetoric and simplistic policy proscriptions. This group thinks that solo scriptura is a mode of constitutional interpretation. These folks will patiently (God bless 'em) spend an hour repeating over and over to their secular friends their reasoning that same-sex marriage is bad because the Bible says so. And San Francisco endures earthquakes because it hosts a gay pride parade.

Huckabee enthrals the Know-Nothings. They love him. And when Huck declames that his health care policy proposals follow from the Golden Rule, the Know-Nothings rush to man the phone banks. This is not to suggest that thoughtful evangelicals cannot or do not support Huck. It is to suggest that Huckabee has cornered the Know-Nothings market.

A second group of evangelical pharisees are the Jim Wallis Accomodaters. What these folks want more than anything is an invitation to the cocktail party. They love being seen with secular Liberals because (they assume) talking about poor people with the academic and cultural elite demonstrates their enlightenment. Unlike their knuckle-dragging cousins, the Theocrats, the Accomodaters care about the poor, the downtrodden, the sick, and puppies. Especially puppies.

I have been unable to locate any poll data on this, but in my (admittedly anecdotal) experience, an appreciable number of Accomodaters are backing Obama. This is a perfect fit, of course. Like the Accomodaters, Obama defies commitment to any particular set of convictions. No one knows what he believes. Sure, there's retreat from Iraq, single-payer health care, and ambiguous proposals to rob from the rich and give to the poor, but those positions are de rigueur in the Democratic party these days. What really sets Obama apart is his commitment to Hope. He is unequivocally and without reservation opposed to darkness, despair, and puppy-killing. Unlike the Theocrats. And Hillary. I suppose.