Born Again

February 21, 2005
       Last month media elder statesman Bill Moyers made a speech after receiving an award at Harvard in which he said that "born again" members of the Bush regime couldn't possibly believe in the future if they truly subscribed to the doctrines of Pentecostal Christianity -- since its theology includes the notion that the world has entered an "end times" scenario as described in the the Book of Revelations. Moyers went further, implying that people who explicitly and programmatically don't believe in the future have no business running a government, the chief task of which is safeguarding the future.

     Friends of mine are alarmed about the rise of the Pentecostals and evangelicals. Personally, I think there is going to be a hearty backlash against them. It is beginning to look too obvious that they don't care about several crucial aspects of the human project in its current form. They don't care about global warming. They don't care about the gathering world energy crisis. They don't care about America's phony economy based on ever more suburban development. At the secondary level, they don't care about basic medical research, they don't care about protecting the nation's borders, they don't care about corporate depradations against communities and workers, they don't care about the growing obscene gap between the rich and the poor.

      This apocalyptic religion has risen out of the Sunbelt, out of those very parts of the country that have most enjoyed hyper-turbo-mega prosperity during the high tide of the cheap oil era. Perhaps their dark vision is an apprehension that the things they have benefited from so hugely are indeed coming to an end -- easy motoring and cheap air conditioning, to name two biggies. But are they so dumb that no other way of life is even conceivable to them?

      One of the dirty secrets of our time is that a large group of relatively stupid people were able to thrive in the growth medium of a cheap energy economy. People who had emerged blinking from agricultural serfdom in the 1950s found themselves, within a generation, making millions whacking together suburban houses and selling Chevrolets to other people like them. It is no accident that the main activity of televangelism is, literally, money-grubbing, or that so many of the branches of this degraded Christianity are preoccupied with unearned riches. It is also not an accident that no major spokesperson of the "born again" sector has made a peep about Las Vegas, or against legalized gambling anywhere in the country -- in fact, this New Christianity represents the Las Vegas-ization of religion per se, faith in the idea that it is possible to get something for nothing, an idea which is generally only believed in by stupid people or little children, an idea that is deeply pernicious to the human project.

       As the post-war economy uprooted so many southerners from rural places, and traditional ways of life, and plunked them in alienating, lonely, disconnected suburban nowheres ruled by consumerist ways of life, religion became ever more important as the only remaining place of social enactment. Church membership across this arid suburban social landscape increasingly compensated for the absence of real communities based on networks of local economic relations. In a way, fundamentalist religion made the predations of the corporate community-destroyers easier. It made secular community seem optional, dispensable, provisional, something easily replaced by WalMart. It squared nicely with the ethos of hyper-individualism, in which bargain shopping trumped any aspect of civic amenity. The churches, meanwhile, sought to benefit from the same economies of scale as those enjoyed by the giant retail chains. Increasingly, the churches were organized on a mass basis and housed in buildings that looked like WalMart with gigantic parking facilities. In fact, evangelical churches were renowned for taking over the leases of dead chain stores in dying malls because the rents were so cheap. Sunbelt evangelicalism became a kind of WalMart of the spirit. Political leaders went bargain shopping in them for voting souls.

     Since it is a religion essentially based on extreme selfishness, luxury, comfort, and self-satisfaction, it will probably become most virulent when the goodies its members have enjoyed grow scarce. In other words, when the folks in Phoenix and Atlanta find themselves on line waiting for gasoline, duck and cover. It is unfortunate that the very real hardships of the global oil crisis will appear to jibe with their stupid fantasies about the "end times," because the end of cheap fossil fuel does not have to be the end of civilization, and certainly not of the human race. But this stupidity and selfishness go hand-in-hand, so the nation as a whole has not been able to face the most obvious tasks of preparation, like reviving the railroad system.

      The non-stupid, non-born again part of the nation has been cowed into submission for decades by the Sunbelt evangelicals. The Democratic party could not formulate a coherent opposition to that culture of self-satisfaction. The Democrats even nominated a paragon of unearned riches as its most recent presidential candidate, a man who didn't have the moral fiber to make his fortune selling cars or building strip malls.

     Soon, the problems this nation faces will be so obvious and grave that George W. Bush and the Republicans and the WalMartians, and all the moneygrubbing TV preachers, and the people who can't imagine an hour of leisure without engines ringing in their ears, and the offspring of all the bug-eyed lynch-mob cretins of yore will stand naked in discredit. The rest of the nation, the non-stupid, non-selfish, non-childish, non-believers in the idea that it is possible to get something for nothing will take a stand. It won't be the end of the world, but it will be a political convulsion against a background of fire, proving that the future belongs to those who believe in the future.

Comments

[carlostheobscure]

"this stupidity and selfishness go hand-in-hand, so the nation as a whole has not been able to face the most obvious tasks of preparation, like reviving the railroad system."

IMO the true functional predecessor of Bush was Reagan. His administration institutionalized the changes that cut off the possibility of the public sphere doing anything for the public purpose--like reviving the national RR system. All uses of government were for enrichment of the private sphere. The top echelon of our corporatist elites started in earnest their metamorphosis into the naked plutocrats of today during his administration as well.

During WWII and the Marshall plan, extreme efforts were taken by governmental officials to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest. Compare that with the Bush administration's conduct of the Iraqi campaign with its naked war profiteering by corporate camp followers like Cheney's Haliburton. Gee, I wonder why Germany and France don't want to send troops.

Reagan followed Carter, a true Christian who reminded American's that the Energy crisis was the moral equivalent of war and actually might involve a small amount of material sacrifice by the American people. Back then, "blood for oil" could at least loosely be regarded as just a metaphor.

Bush's "Christianity" very well might simply be a political expediency. If it isn't, it runs no deeper than the jail bird killer who accepts "Jesus as his savior" because its a convenient way of eliminating the need to actually live one's life according to Jesus' teachings. When all you really want to do is plunder, pillage, and enjoy unimpeded the perks of power, this shallow Pentecostal Christianity is a hell of an enabler.

Thanks for the great post, Jim.

[aj]

Jim, spot-on. You had touched upon aspects of this in your previous writings but never really explored it until now.

I believe that this spiritual crisis doesn't come directly from Consumerism; I think that's merely a symptom. Look at how many people live lives fearfully, locking their doors, alienated, getting through each day with antidepressants, sleeping with a gun in the nightstand.

This malaise that stalks the US (and Canada, and many Western countries to some extent) comes because we are uprooted. We all used to live in medium-sized villages, towns and hamlets, or in great cities; even in the latter, we had the mitigating factor of extended families to help us find ourselves.

To be able to visualize the future, I think, means you must know yourself. This requires self-reflection, and reflection requires mirrors - the guidance and input of family, teachers, relatives, a neighborhood that raises its young people as a common trust.

Without community or extended family, we are atomized, a fine mist of small nuclear families with no bonds to the ones around us. In both chemical and social/political terms, to be without bonds is to be powerless.

Social atomization reinforces the corporate depradations you mentioned. We are told that realizing our individual potential is the highest thing we can aspire to, yet high-achieving individuals are notoriously Machiavellian, paranoid, isolated, out-of-touch with reality, with huge appetites that can seemingly never be satisfied.

The cult of self-reliance is a big part of this. If you can't do it alone, if you admit you are wrong, if you admit you need help, you are weak. People resent you; you engender contempt.

There is no place for the weak in a Big Strong Xtian nation, even though the weak and the meek were #1 on Jesus' hit parade.

The cult of atomized, hyperindividualism extends to peoples quasi-military, teenage "Army of One" power-fantasy dreams of Going it Alone after the Catastrophe.

In almost every discussion of Peak Oil I see online, a certain class of Rugged Do-It-Yourselfers rave about being able to live "off the grid," in their individual, self-reliant cabins stocked, presumably, with lots of fresh water and ammunition to keep other people from putting their cabins too close. How long will they last, out there, on their lonesomes?

Very few people are able to visualize communitarian futures -- things like reintroducing agricultural fingers into urban settings (re-ruralization), or forming sustainable intentional communities, or focusing on public transit -- if it involves sharing or co-operation in any way, it is suspect, commie hippie stuff.

There is hope, though. I see a revival of the Great Community Project and these days it seems to come out of nowhere. People longing for community in their dormitory suburbs find each other online.

They build software together, open-source, collectively, with no real 'leaders'.

They may blog individually, but derive meaning from being part of local blogger communities, and get together in real life to do things from having a picnic to organizing a local political campaign. Real bonds are forged. Dreams are shared.

With millions of small pushes in a single direction, seemingly out of nowhere, great things happen. This is the power of community in the connected age. This is why the established press distrusts blogs and similar online communities; they serve as a bulwark against anomie-inducing social fragmentation, which means people buy less "jive-plastic" trash to fill the holes in their hearts.

The new communitarians - the bloggers, the "social software" builders, open-source and sustainability advocates are shaping new ethos that will help us through the times to come. -- Presuming we can keep the lights on!

[Bruce Joffe]

I'm still puzzled how people who are living in plenty - some of the greatest plenty humanity has ever known - would yearn for it to be over in an apocalypse. I'd like this heaven-on-earth to last and last and last! And it is NOT the poorest, most destitute people who yearn for apocalypse.

What is the deep source of unhappiness in these people's lives? The same unhappiness that causes apparently "civilized" people to justify torture. Where does it come from? How can it be salved in a way that saves us from an ecological apocalypse?

Still searching,
Bruce

[Martha]

Let's not make Jimmy Carter out to be the saint. Remember the Carter Doctrine? "Vital interests to the U.S. in the Middle East will be upheld with military force if necessary." All of these guys are cut from the same cloth.

[Andy R]

I have to start by saying I get put-off when Kunstler goes on his anti-southern, anti-Christian rants. Still, his points are well taken and I am somewhat familiar with the crowd he is talking about.
Born again (implying that you didn't get it right the first time) is by definition an attempt to regain what was lost (or you never had)
In many ways, these folks are the first generation to revisit their spirituality, after a generation or two (or three) away from any spiritual life at all.

Some of them do annoy the hell out of me - others are truly the good people they try to be. They often make themselves a part of a community parish, as opposed to the "mega-wal-mart-praise-the-Lord" churches - and incorporate that part of their lives into strengthening the communities they inhabit, as opposed to isolating themselves from it. These are folks who will thrive post peak-oil America.
To aj's point, I would offer the example of the Agrarian movement, particularly the writings of Wendell Berry, as an antidote to the misguided perceptions some may have regarding the Great Community Project.
Berry has an appeal to those who espouse traditional values, yet his philosophy of local economy is very complimentary to the rearrangement of American life that is dicussed in Kunstler's columns - and on this blog .

Having said all this, I still get annoyed by folks who take the worst examples of religious zealotry and use them in a display of utter contempt for that religion. Despite my respect for his opinions, I can't help but to draw the inference that that is where Kunstler is when it comes to Christianity in general and the south in particular.
But that's OK - I'm sure Jesus loves him anyway ;-)

[Philip Bess]

http://www.justpeace.org/encourdistributism.htm

Interesting post Jimbo; but while it certainly poses a challenge to some communities of faith, I think it also warrants some consideration of religiously-motivated efforts on behalf of the common good.

Your post has prompted me to do a google search about "Distributism," which is a largely though not exclusively Catholic social and economic theory and movement that is critical of both big government and big business. If you're interested, do that google search and pick some of the links at random. I found the one above particularly interesting.

Rhetorical questions: Would those who engage in such activities as this link suggests be liberals or conservatives? Kerry voters or Bush voters? Religious Right or Religious Left? Perhaps both? Perhaps neither? Is it possible or desirable to have a community in which party politics, however necessary, is secondary to other communal objectives?

Best regards,

Philip Bess

"I think of myself as religious but not spiritual. Partial to the sensuous, communal and cerebral forms of ritual and text, I've always considered "spirituality" too ethereal and invertebrate a way of being." --Eugene McCarraher

[kd]

Great post, Jim.

I work at a Barnes & Noble & sell dozens of business cum "inspirational" books a day; with titles like "Jesus, CEO" & "The Automatic Millionaire". There's always a small crowd around the "Investment" section.
The something for nothing, pay as little taxes as possible, take the money & run mentality is like a disease. Combine that with a "wealth is a blessing" mentality, & no wonder we go easy on the Bush "team".
Everybody's hoping to cash in.

Yesterday I saw a bumper-sticker that said "Bush/Cheney: Farm and Ranch Team".
You'd think real farmers & ranchers would be sick in their boots at the sight...

[aj]

Andy R: Wendell Berry is already an inspiration. I'd add to that the wisdom of Christopher Alexander. His classic trilogy Timeless Way Of Building, A Pattern Language and The Oregon Experiment outlines a sort of organic-algorithmic, finely detailed, human-scaled approach to town planning without "master plans."

At the Uppsala conference on Peak oil, Scandinavian professor Folke Gunther presented a very interesting PowerPoint about re-ruralization of urban areas, basically replicating Alexander's "interlocked urban/rural fingers" pattern.

You can view the PowerPoint here: http://www4.tsl.uu.se/isv/IWOOD2002/ppt/pptFG.ppt

And from Community Service's The Community Solution site, here's their model "intentional community," Agraria.

http://www.communitysolution.org/agraria.html

[seebee]

As usual, excellent post. I have to agree that having people in power who have such a nihilistic take on religion makes it that much more difficult for us to think that we can navigate the post-peak world without all of the associated violence, chaos and micro-theocracies that I imagine will pop up in my neck of the woods (I'm in the South). My hope is that things will go slowly enough (post-peak decline over years, not weeks or months) that some of these folks will fall in line with the rest of us, trying to make things better. The Washington Post article, "The Greening of Evangelicals," shows why we might have some hope, and even presents an argument for why Rapture-believing Christians should care about the environment. The "creation care" movement are some of the same people who brought the "What Would Jesus Drive?" campaign out some time back. Hopefully Sojourners will also become involved. Still, like Jim, I find myself very concerned about what will happen with this particular group of people once we start the downward production slide, and I'm a Christian. I should add that a lot of the accusations Jim makes about what these Christians don't care about could be levelled at virtually all Americans.

[Andy R]

Amen seebee - Christians are easy to target - and safe for those concerned about political-correctness.
Contempt should be reserved for those that believe in nothing - out of pure apathy.

[Weaseldog]

When I was a kid going to bible school in the South, I was taught that it was ok to kill muslims or black people because they probably didn't have souls anyway. And if they did they were already going to hell.

Then I was taught that dogs don't have souls, but it's not ok to kill them.

It sounds like things have changed a little since the days when gas stations had three restrooms, Men, Women and Coloreds, but not much.

[The Heretik]

Nicely connected exegesis, oh BowTied One. While these guys may seem to have their heads in the sky up there somewhere with the pie, the way they are distorting things with numbers is simply hellish. Come by and comment any time.

Good job, give yourself a well deserved pat on the back.

Now get back to work.

[Rodrigo]

Here's a rant with some substance. The religous in America are deluded. Stupid? Not necessarily. It's a mistake to think of them so. Some perfectly normal people are afflicted with delusion beliefs. On the other hand, the influence of religion in America is pernicious. Look to the ascendent European Union, where the influence of religion is minimal, (except for recent Muslim immigrants)for a model. I can't agree that fundamentalist Christianity is in a decline. It seems to me as America declines religious delusions are likely to rise.

[Bill Maher]

We are a nation that is unenlightened because of religion. I do believe that. I think that religion stops people from thinking. I think it justifies crazies. I think flying planes into a building was a faith-based initiative. I think religion is a neurological disorder. If you look at it logically, it's something that was drilled into your head when you were a small child. It certainly was drilled into mine at that age. And you really can't be responsible when you are a kid for what adults put into your head.

When people say to me, 'You hate America,' I don't hate America. I love America. I am just embarrassed that it has been taken over by people like evangelicals, by people who do not believe in science and rationality. It is the 21st century. And I will tell you, my friend. The future does not belong to the evangelicals. The future does not belong to religion.

[Mike Harrington]

Before you slam the south too much, be aware that there is a big struggle going on in Houston between pro-mass transit forces and republican representatives Tom Delay and John Culberson. In November 2003, voters approved a transit bond referendum that would build a vast light rail system that would run express streetcars all over the city of Houston. This would essentially make Houston a Frankfürt-am-Golf-Mexicos in 20 years. It would completely change the personality of Houston. Click on the link to my name to see photos of it.

The existing line, opened in January 2004, has the highest ridership per route mile of any line in the US. MetroRail's 4,053 average daily boardings per route mile rank way ahead of cities such as Baltimore (670), Philadelphia (930), Pittsburgh (980), Denver (1,200) and Dallas (1,290).

Here is a link to the stuggle playing out now:

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/editorial/3039737

It is interesting to note that almost all the new rail transit development in the past 20 years has been west of the Mississippi. From the Mississippi west, light rail is growing quickly. East of the Mississippi, they are still abandoning streetcar lines, as in Boston and Philadelphia.

Kunstler may deride the southwest, but it is the east where transit development is languishing. The highway lobby is losing the battle in the west, but in the east they are more firmly entrenched than ever. Is there any way to get Jim Kunstler to drop this stereotype once and for all? It is in Denver, Dallas, Phoenix, LA, Salt Lake, Houston, Portland, San Diego and Sacramento where the transit development is occurring. East of the Mississippi, it is apparently impossible to build a light rail line.

[carlostheobscure]

The really dangerous think about the ascendant Christian Conservatives is the possibility of self-fulfilling prophecy concerning the whole end times narrative. Unfortunately, fate has conspired to create some really dangerous conditions for the "human project".

Consider the interlocking pieces of the great historical accident of the mid-east: the biggest oil deposits; the tension between the West and the anachronistic Islamic world--still tribal, still in the feudal age of Faith--; the weird part that Israel/"the Jews" have to play in the Christian apocalyptic tradition. From a rational perspective, all this is chilling primarily because people who are both consciously and unconsciously influenced by this balderdash now have their hands on many of the levers of power.

I also hope that Mr. Maher is wrong about the future not belonging to religion. We have a crisis of materialism in this civilization. If we're going to avoid major mayhem in the near future as the big machine destabilizes at it reaches the limits of growth, it might be because this Xtian nation starts starts paying attention to the Christianity of St. Francis or the words of the Sermon on the Mount rather than that of St. Paul. A little old fashion nature worship wouldn't hurt either ( hoping that the NASCAR mob converts en masse to Buddism probably being a bit unrealistic).

People will need a replacement creed for the current consumerist satiation of the masses, and it is hard to imagine where it could come from if not from the better parts of this culture's spiritual traditions. I don't think that rationalism, the enlightenment, etc is enough--it has to be tempered by some kind of traditional wisdom or the terrible ideological "ism" of the 20th century are going to re-visit us in the 21st century in even more horrible form.

[Andy R]

Wow. I love how these weekly comments develop. This week, we have those who use the worst examples of evangelism to justify their contempt for religion in general and others who correctly in my opinion, reason that for many of us, there is an essential need for a belief system/philosophy/religion to act as a moral compass. Against religion because your parents rammed it down your throat?? Sorry 'bout that - blame them.
I keep my kids in church because I want to be sure they have something tangible to rebel against once they turn 13 and know everything and I suddenly get stupid :-)
I also want them to realize that science does not contradict the moral teachings of the Bible just because its proven that we evolved from earlier species.

I've gone off topic here, but come to think of it, Jim's column took us there this week, so I guess it's OK.

I would not counter the Evangelicals who gain political power with an anti-religion response - it only encourages them, possibly strengthens them beyond the support they would get otherwise - and turns off those of us who are not anti-religion, but would otherwise join forces against their brand of zealotry.

[Weaseldog]

I know that religion is a comfort for many people. It certainly was for my late grandmother who found wisdom in the 'Sermon on the Mount'.

But for some it's just a shield a device, or a costume. It's a means of feeding greed and rationalizing the most atrocious acts. Religion has also been used to torture and kill the devout, as in the case of gnostics, who were often burned to death for refusing to worship Mammom.

When 911 occurred I was inundated in the workplace by christian radio for days. The preachers one after another called for the slaughter of the muslims and the cleansing of the Holy Land, then begged for money.

Don't you realize though, if you think humans evolved from from apes, then that means that you believe that white people are descended from black people (monkeys)? That'll get you into a fistfight quick here in beautiful and devout Texas.

[One Salient Oversight]

An examination of Jim Kunstler's article "Born Again" (21 February 2005)

Any article written against Evangelical Christianity by those outside the movement will naturally make tacit assumptions about the movement that are, unfortunately wrong. Jim Kunsteler's article is no exception, but I have yet to read an equivalent article that does NOT expose some of the gravest problems within the evangelical movement. We born-again Christians need to read this article with an open mind, reading past his obvious mistakes and assumptions, and realise that he is making a very significant attack upon our culture - an attack that, to be brutally honest, we deserve.

Let me start off pointing out his mistakes. First off, it is "The Book of Revelation" (singular) rather than the "Book of Revelations" (plural). This may seem like nitpicking, but it is actually significant. The last book in the Bible is quite well known amongst most Americans and most American evangelicals. Those "in the know", however, will point out that the plural form of the book's title has entered into modern parlance with ease - to the point where even most modern-day Christians use it rather than the proper title. We can therefore forgive Mr Kunstler for his usage of the term, but weep at its usage in our churches - for this simple mistake actually highlights the problem most evangelical churches have in that they are actually ignorant of the Bible. Mr Kunstler is not an evangelical, nor is he a Christian, so we can understand some of his Biblical ignorance. The fact that the Christian church, generally, is just as ignorant is appalling. The point I am making here will become increasingly important as my argument develops here.

The second problem in Kunstler's article is that he has merged premillennialism with Pentecostalism. In layman's terms, this means that he has made the assumption that Christians who believe that the end of the world is nigh are synonymous with those Christians who attend the large experience-based, worship-centred Pentecostal and Charismatic churches that are prevalent in the United States.

Premillennialism does not, in itself, produce in its adherents a blinkered outlook on the future. However, since it is an important doctrine within many American evangelical churches, it has produced a predilection for a limited futurism in its adherents. Mr Kunstler is correct in his assumption that Premillennialism has led to an attitude of carelessness for what the future brings, but this is probably augmented by the consumer society that this belief has been able to grow in.

Premillennialism, while a very popular belief, is now being slowly replaced by another form of eschatology called Postmillennialism - the belief that the world needs to become a better place and become more "Christianized" before Christ returns. It is this belief that is currently popular amongst the Pentecostal and Charismatic churches in the US. Based upon the twin theologies of the "Manifest Sons of God" (that new apostles and god-ordained leaders will rise up and do miracles and lead God's church to greater glory) and "Kingdom Now Theology" (that God will appoint Christians to places of high secular authority in order to "take over" that institution for Christ - George W. Bush comes to mind here), Postmillenialism seeks an aggressive "taking over" of the non Christian world. This is why so many evangelicals are engaging in aggressive politicking, as well as an explicit belief that the Republican party is the only true political party to adhere to (especially when the godless and secular seem to inhabit the Democratic party).

This mistake by Mr. Kunstler, however, does not destroy his argument in the slightest. In fact, the true situation (what I have outlined above) only serves to support it.

We need to understand that on the right wing of politics there exists a rather ironic dichotomy - moral conservatism alongside free-market libertarianism. Although I cannot provide a reference at this point, I do remember hearing years ago that the average educational level of Evangelicals in the USA is actually below the average for the entire country. This is an important fact. Evangelicals are, at their basic, a very simple people with a simple faith. This is not to demean them, but to offer an explanation of what is actually going on. Evangelicals, therefore, are more likely to support laws that ban abortion rather than support additional tax-and-spend measures to set up agencies to help and educate young women to prevent them from becoming pregnant in the first place. Now why is this? Partly it is because the latter suggestion is too complex to understand while simply "making a law" is easy to understand, but also because the idea of increasing taxes and government spending goes against the neo-liberal economic ideals of the free-market libertarianism which also typify the political right.

Indeed, it is the whole adherence to a free-market system that has laid the groundwork for much of evangelical thought in the US since the second world war. Soviet Communism was seen to be a great danger because of its promotion of atheism - and this basic assumption has remained ever since. Any attempt to raise taxes and spend more government money is seen as both a denial of neo-liberal economic belief and adherence to a more socialistic, and therefore communistic, economic system. In simple terms, this has led to the following equation: Higher taxes = More spending = More government control over the economy = Socialism = Communism = Atheism. Most evangelicals wouldn't realise that such an equation exists in their mind, but it is there, nonetheless. The result is that evangelicals are far more likely to vote for political parties that embrace both moral conservatism and economic liberalism - which is obviously the Republican party. The fact that the current Republican administration has been far more financially profligate than the previous one (Clinton, Democrat, fiscally prudent) may seem to contradict this idea, but not in the minds of most evangelicals (besides, Bill had his affair with Monica, and sexual sin is far more disturbing for typical evangelicals than US bombers killing Iraqi children).

Kunstler makes an important point when he discusses the emphasis upon prosperity within the Pentecostal and Charismatic movement. Since the link has been made above between the free market and the evangelical faith, a focus upon financial and worldly prosperity can easily be made.

Getting onto the issue of Peak Oil, we can therefore understand why Evangelicals have, for the most part, ignored the dangers posed by the depletion of oil supplies, as well as explaining reasons why they would oppose any argument put to them about it. Because evangelicals are firmly in the grip of the right, and because they are generally under-educated, they will write off the "rantings" of Peak Oil advocates as being from "the looney left" or a myth created by "the liberal media".

The fact is, however, that evangelicals do not have to be this way. Being an evangelical Christian myself has meant that I obviously hold to some moral beliefs that the majority of society may not adhere to. However, I will make the following assertion: Nothing that I have described above as typifying evangelical attitudes has any connection with the Bible's teachings.

The idea that we should embrace a consumerist society and aim for smaller and smaller government is not something that is prescribed in Scripture. There are no passages that teach evangelicals to promote neo-liberal economics, or the reduction of taxes, or the increase in government spending. There are no passages that speak against the idea of socialism or speak in support of personal liberty.

And there are certainly no passages that encourage Christians to take a blinkered view of the future. All evangelicals (myself included) believe that Christ will come back at any time to take his people into glory, and to judge the sins of the world - but there is nothing in that to discourage evangelicals from making wise financial decisions for their own future, or to discourage decision-making as a community to ensure that a potential problem in the future is ironed out (Peak Oil for instance). Many evangelicals like myself are heartily sick of the modern evangelical movement and the embarrassment that it cause us - and the dishonour that it brings to God.

In the modern evangelical church today, the message from the pulpit is about success and prosperity when it should be a message of repentance and forgiveness. Instead of focusing upon the cross, and the substitutionary atonement that Christ brings through it, we have evangelical leaders ranting about 'homosexual conspiracies" and how all card carrying ACLU members will go to hell. The evangelical church today is a mess, and if the negative effects of peak oil hit (as I am sure they will), we will certainly see what Mr Kunstler describes at the conclusion of his essay: the evangelical church standing naked in discredit.

I for one will welcome it.

http://www.one-salient-oversight.net/

© 2005 Neil McKenzie Cameron
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/2.0/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, 559 Nathan Abbott Way, Stanford, California 94305, USA.

[Robert]

What is the true shame of American Christianity right now is not the outspoken-ness of the Taliban clique, the hard-core burn 'em at the stake minority that gets all the ink but how the Christian middle and left have seemingly surrendered their place in the debates.

One can find many reasons for sane economic, consumptive, and humanistic social policies in the Bible as well as all religions (IMO all religions say the same thing and it boils down to treat others the way you wanted to be treated, everything else is filler). We are wealth culture hooked on materialistic excess and yet the Bible frowns on this. Where is the compassion in our society the Bible talks about, where is the sense of true "stewards" of the earth the Bible calls on us all to accept? The message of living within your means, living lightly o the land, and caring for your neighbors as you would yourself is riddled throughout the Bible but these days the only Christians we hear in society seem to be the violent, hate-filled, repture brained types.

Where are the Christians in all this? I know many Christians who are privately aghast at how the right has subverted what it means to be Christian in America today but where are they? It's nice to tell people that "all Christians aren't like that" but where's the counter example? I mean, when Pat Robertson got up there right after 9/11 and told us all that the terrorists were allowed to hit us by God because we were so tolerant of gays or some such nonsense, where is the counter argument from Christians to say "wait a minute, this idiot doesn't speak for me." It's too bad, I agree, that people paint others with too broad a brush but it's time for the other Christians to tell the reat of us that they're there. Otherwise, after a while more of the hateful church types running around it's going to discourage a lot of us from even looking.

[Mauricio Babilonia]

I would have to entirely agree with the drift of the last two posts (Neil's and Robert's). Although Jim has nailed the affliction, he has mislabeled its host. It's not any particular sect or denomination of Christianity, nor a particular geographic or socioeconomic group. It's a matter of attitude and habit.

For the people Jim refers to, the spiritual lessons of Christianity are lost and all that remains are the trappings and ceremony. They believe that as long as they follow the rituals of Christianity their souls will be saved. Too bad they're wrong. The bible warns of ravenous wolves in sheep's clothing and of whitewashed tombs full of dead men's bones.

Here are a few questions that might help separate the sheep from the goats (so to speak):

Should true spirituality and faith in God lead to more human suffering or less? Did Christ ordain that we love only our straight neighbor as we love ourselves? How is it that religion and science are in conflict--did God not endow us with intellect?

The last one hits the nail on the head, and this is my gripe with this type of Christian. Somehow they think that because God will ultimately forgive them anything they do, then it's OK to turn off their brains and sin to their heart's content because the bible is the only source of truth and if you don't like it, you can go to hell.

[Weaseldog]

Thank you Salient, Robert and Mauricio, it's refreshing to learn that Christians can still be philosphers.

If there are any folks like you in my area, they are probably keeping their heads down while the radicals rant and rave.

Around here, folks think it's, "Do unto others as you fear they may do unto you."

Sometimes I think the thinking is that of a deer in the headlights. Folks know they are in a tight spot, but don't know what to do. So their brains lock up.

[sammysdot]

How to explain a complete lack of emotional connection with religion?

In my own case, having been brought up w/out religion, but educated in the cultural artifacts of "western civilization", the Christian mythos just does not resonate with me. Nor do other non-Christian ones.

So why villify people like me--Andy R. does so, and quite nastily--for "not believing in anything." That's just silly. Everybody believes in something. Life as we know it could not exist were it not for this fundamental function of the human brain.

Good old Pierre Laplace. When he presented Napoleon with a copy of his book, the Celestial Mechanics, Napoleon leafed through it and asked him why there is no mention of God in it. "I have no need for this hypothesis" was Laplace's reply. I think it was a very good, very deeply human reply, and utterly modest.

Which leads me to what I find particularly off-putting about religious apologists--their immodesty. But who amongst us is not a little arrogant?

Thanks Jim for an astute essay.

[kd]

Good response sammy.

A sense of the sacred, of transcendence, is deeply human, & can occur outside of any "religious" context (if one defines religion as belief in a supernatural power that creates & governs the universe, & any institutionalized system grounded in such belief).

A good example would be the films of Yasujiro Ozu. They have no particular "relgious" content, yet audiences world-wide refer to them as deeply "spiritual" experiences.

Ozu's gravestone has the single character "Mu" on it. Does that mean he didn't believe in anything? I think not.

[Andy R]

sammysdot,
My statement was that contempt should be reserved "for those that believe in nothing - out of pure apathy."
...meaning for those who don't bother to think about what they might believe - too lazy to even have a sense of wonder.
That doesn't seem to apply to you or anyone else who posts here. My thoughts on belief systems are that you instill your kids either the religion you were brought up in or if that doesn't suit you, some other philosophy that provides a moral grounding.
Surely we've all seen families too apathetic to make that happen.
Our city (and suburban) streets are full of their offspring, causing many of our social problems today.
I hold no contempt for those who are anti-religion per se - I just take issue with them, as conveyed in my postings ...