Mike James writes today:

I also think it likely that concerning Christians who have supported this regime it will also “take a generation for them to recover their integrity.” Based on my day-to-day interactions with nominal- and non-Christians, I remain convinced that the Religious Right has poisoned the well for Adonai in this generation.

Now I also think that if Jesus can turn water into wine, he can also turn poisoned water into water as needed — whether literally or symbolically — and thereby redeem the situation. But should he have to? And will he not hold accountable those who poisoned the well?

Yes, it is certainly becoming rare to hear the word Christian or “values” anymore without it being attached to some generic discussion of “Christian Nation” (“generic”, because the ethics of such said nation are extremely non-descript other than some vague call to some “return” to “old-fashioned” values, and usually, the Bible is dragged into the mix and poisoned by association).

I believe strongly that much of the reason behind the Democrat’s unwillingness to engage issues of faith in their public presentation is that many of the people who believe in the platforms usually seen as being “Democratic party campaign issues and policies” — such as programs of social uplift, peace efforts, environment —- are extremely put off by the absence and even the demonization of such by the Religious Right. It becomes “righteous” to be “athiest” and distance oneself from the simplistic hordes.

As I write this and glance at the Hearts and Minds column Jim Wallis writes in Sojourners magazine, he is writing this month about the same issue, and this March issue focuses on one of those issues: the environment.

Brian McLaren, of “A New Kind Of Christian” fame, has an article about Evangelicals and the Environment :

When I meet professional wildlife biologists and other volunteers, they’re surprised that an evangelical (or post-evangelical, or “younger evangelical,” or whatever) pastor would be out here doing this sort of thing. They’re not used to seeing mud-smeared pastors who aren’t afraid to grope around in bog muck for turtles or who keep track of chorus frogs and Baltimore checkerspots and Indian paintbrush. I know what they’re thinking: Christians, especially ones associated with the term “evangelical,” are part of the problem, not part of the solution. They listen to James Dobson and Pat Robertson and James Kennedy, not Wendell Berry and Herman Daly; they focus on the family and the military, not the environment.

What he says following that is a dead-on , no-nonsense scathing inditement of the reason why much of what passes for evangelical Christianity is of no challenge or concern to the establishment:

The surface causes of environmental carelessness among conservative Protestants are legion, including subcontracting the evangelical mind out to right-wing politicians and greedy business interests…putting the gospel of Jesus through the strainer of consumerist-capitalism and retaining only the thin broth that this modern-day Caesar lets pass through…a tendency to be against whatever “liberals” are for. Even more important, though, are the deeper theological roots of environmental disinterest – and the emerging theological values that many of us are embracing instead.

The reverse is also often true , I suppose: that is almost a requirement to be “against whatever Christians are for” if one cares about the environment, cares about peace, cares about social welfare. I have long held a kind of affinity for many “athiests” I meet, because I usually find a much deeper “raison d’etre” for their philosophy than I do in any of the evangelical ( I prefer the term “fundamentalist” to describe what irks me in the public face of Christianity — or at least, what passes as such).

I had the opportunity and pleasure and very pleasant surprise of meeting and talking with Brian McLaren a couple months ago in Cincinnati as he visited and hosted a discussion at Old Saint George, when he was in town for a meeting of Vineyard folks about the “Emerging Church”. My underlying assumption , as often happens when I associate any “trends” and “mass appeal” and “popularity level” is to not pay much attention to what is being said until I’m forced to do so or to take notice when somebody “crosses over” into areas I’m in which I’m intereted. Thus, I was “surprised” to hear some of the stuff I heard Brian talking about, and it all made perfect sense. A lot of what “A New Kind of Christian” is about is just that: A New focus, a new “attention” to relevance; not in the sense of “compromising in order to keep current”, but a recognition that the concerns to which God is calling people are asking new kinds of questions, and questioning old , “Modernisitc” approaches and assumptions (thus the term “postmodern”). I had seen the term “postmodern Church” bandied about frequently among bloggers who happen also to be Christians, and after hearing and talking with Brian, am now seeing what all the “fuss” is about. He is truly suggesting a “new kind of Christian” that I can get excited about, and feel somewhat of a sense of vindication in my tendency to meld theology with “Cluetrain” values (that the “conversation” is what needs to become central to the operation of companies or organizations, if they wish to “speak to” the audience in ways that transcend the consumerisitc model of “product” vs “customer” and marketing tactics that seem to be fixated on trying to find out how to shove a square peg into a round hole).