The American Dream is un-Christian

Mike, our go to Religious Leftist, explains:

For the most part the western church finds itself defending a Christianized version of what we'll call The American Dream. It goes something like this: Go to a good school, find your life's partner, get a good job, buy a nice house, and gradually work your way up the food chain to acquire more (and bigger) stuff. We then 'sanctify' this story by adding, "And, oh yes, be a Christian." (Of course we never stop to consider if this addendum to the story is compatible with the story itself.) Perhaps we then self-identify by placing a Jesus fish on the trunk of our car.

The People of God are to be something wholly different. An alternative community, as Walter Brueggemann would put it. However it goes without saying that we can't be an alternative to the status quo when we are the status quo. And let's face it, the status quo, by it's very definition, is not interested in hearing about alternatives to itself.

Ultimately this renders us completely ineffective, as far as our primary purpose is concerned. That purpose? To assist in God's grand plan to redeem all of creation. To redeem is to transform, which is to change. The Body of Christ is here to change the world, just as Jesus himself did when he walked the earth.

Let's not kid ourselves... Mike's premise is grounded in some truth... that we, as Christians, are too many times focused on 'things'... too often distracted from what some would label our higher calling... too quick to diminish our responsibility to care for the down-trodden, and this is the proclaimed core of Mike's, and other Religious Leftist's, theology.

But, and you knew there'd be a but, clearly, Mike's means has become the end. 

To suggest that we, you and I, or Mike and his like-minded cohorts, can redeem anything, is to suggest that there is no need for Christ. 

Mike's attempt to redefine the word redemption, to give it some contemporary feel and/or justification for his ideology, is fine absent the idea that it's also theologically much less than doctrinally sound.

And it gives me the opportunity to delve into Catholic teaching on the subject. 

Clearly a key component to Catholicism is its devotion to caring for the poor... and in that sense, Mike, to his credit, shares common ground.  But Catholic teaching is also replete with some warnings, warnings I think would be good to heed, for both conservatives and liberals:

Jesus says: “You always have the poor with you, but you will not always have me” (Mt 26:11; cf. Mk 14:7; Jn 12:8). He makes this statement not to contrast the attention due to him with service of the poor. Christian realism, while appreciating on the one hand the praiseworthy efforts being made to defeat poverty, is cautious on the other hand regarding ideological positions and Messianistic beliefs that sustain the illusion that it is possible to eliminate the problem of poverty completely from this world. This will happen only upon Christ's return, when he will be with us once more, for ever. In the meantime, the poor remain entrusted to us and it is this responsibility upon which we shall be judged at the end of time (cf. Mt 25:31-46): “Our Lord warns us that we shall be separated from him if we fail to meet the serious needs of the poor and the little ones who are his brethren”[388].

Mike, and his co-idelogues, too often diminish the power of God while exalting the power of man... and to that end, negate the impact of their mission.

In the zeal that today's Christ-followers have to diminish traditional doctrine, they step on the wisdom that has been gained since Christ walked the earth.  It's past time to point this out... and to do so with vigor.

As to the American Dream, and Mike's proposition:

It seems to me that a key issue with the Christian faith is this: For a long time--probably back to Constantine--we have been living in the wrong story. Furthermore, we've located ourselves in this wrong story for so long that we've forgotten that there is any other. It's difficult to find the place where you should be when you don't realize you're someplace else.

I think it'd be good for Mike to speak to the mirror... and especially think through that last sentence.

Again I go to Catholic teaching:

185. Subsidiarity is among the most constant and characteristic directives of the Church's social doctrine and has been present since the first great social encyclical[395]. It is impossible to promote the dignity of the person without showing concern for the family, groups, associations, local territorial realities; in short, for that aggregate of economic, social, cultural, sports-oriented, recreational, professional and political expressions to which people spontaneously give life and which make it possible for them to achieve effective social growth[396]. This is the realm of civil society, understood as the sum of the relationships between individuals and intermediate social groupings, which are the first relationships to arise and which come about thanks to “the creative subjectivity of the citizen”[397]. This network of relationships strengthens the social fabric and constitutes the basis of a true community of persons, making possible the recognition of higher forms of social activity[398].

...

187. The principle of subsidiarity protects people from abuses by higher-level social authority and calls on these same authorities to help individuals and intermediate groups to fulfil their duties. This principle is imperative because every person, family and intermediate group has something original to offer to the community. Experience shows that the denial of subsidiarity, or its limitation in the name of an alleged democratization or equality of all members of society, limits and sometimes even destroys the spirit of freedom and initiative.

The principle of subsidiarity is opposed to certain forms of centralization, bureaucratization, and welfare assistance and to the unjustified and excessive presence of the State in public mechanisms. “By intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility, the Social Assistance State leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies, which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their clients, and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending”[400]. An absent or insufficient recognition of private initiative — in economic matters also — and the failure to recognize its public function, contribute to the undermining of the principle of subsidiarity, as monopolies do as well.

In order for the principle of subsidiarity to be put into practice there is a corresponding need for: respect and effective promotion of the human person and the family; ever greater appreciation of associations and intermediate organizations in their fundamental choices and in those that cannot be delegated to or exercised by others; the encouragement of private initiative so that every social entity remains at the service of the common good, each with its own distinctive characteristics; the presence of pluralism in society and due representation of its vital components; safeguarding human rights and the rights of minorities; bringing about bureaucratic and administrative decentralization; striking a balance between the public and private spheres, with the resulting recognition of the social function of the private sphere; appropriate methods for making citizens more responsible in actively “being a part” of the political and social reality of their country.

That, in my view, is an intellectualized depiction, certainly in part, of the American Dream, that which Mike is disparaging.  And again, I think he does so in ignorance and in his quest to stay aligned less with sound doctrine and more with un-sound ideology.

It's really pretty telling that the wisdom of the ages is all too frequently set aside by those who today think they're so damned smart while also thinking that those who came before us are so damned stupid.

What's up is down... what's down is up...  and don't you dare question those redefinitions or you'll not be redeemed... simply ask today's progressive Christian.

Comments

[Morgan K Freeberg]

Mollusk Mike is a fascinating personification of an Atlas Shrugged villain. Whatever anyone does for sake of self-preservation earns his loathing...therefore, whether he realizes it or not he is in love with oblivion and death.

I was brought up in a pious protestant Scandinavian household that was similarly dedicated to self-deprivation and anti-profit, so this whole subject is near and dear to me. I left a comment over there and kept it as civil as I possibly could...as I think anyone possibly could...but the last time we did this (with that Ravine-of-Light lady) my comments still offended. Whatever. I think that's the agenda. If anyone comes along to offer something that rocks the boat, it's all "Huh, I don't understand" or "Whoa whoa whoa, things are gonna get real nasty here in a second!" and "I'm so upset I had to put my dog down." They're all defensive maneuvers.

People who detest life and the wonder of humanity, also detest coherent dialogue. Ever notice that?

[Leslie]

It's hard to help the poor if you don't have anything.

[chuck aka xtnyoda]

I like the way one has said it... probably heard a zillion times... but worth repeating once more... "I'd rather put a new man in his old suit than put a new suit on the old man."

What we end up with with the "social-gospel" is nothing other than a religion of co-dependency... which is a mental condition that is difficult to overcome.... but for those under it's dread sway... it feels so right.

[Morgan K Freeberg]

And Rick, that is a very thoughtful and scholarly exploration you have of the subject overall...but the more I discuss things with Mike, the more I think trying to attach him to any such exploration, in any way, is something like buying a Bentley for a snail.

Over at his place I'm making the point -- Christians are obviously allowed to sleep, eat, drink, keep themselves healthy. Somewhere between those staples, and some others, things are no longer allowed according to you...so where do you draw the line? And he goes "here's a line, here's a line" and starts quoting the same verses at me. Line. Get it? He applied a different meaning to the word and used it as an excuse to quote his favorite verses.

Yeah...he's doing "lines" alright.

Engaging any kind of coherent dialogue with Mollusk Mike, is like trying to do the same thing with a randomly selected vagrant found at a bus stop, babbling incoherently to himself. I seriously think something's wrong with his long-term memory. Like it's beyond his capacity to follow another train of thought. And I seriously doubt, in a world where you had to pass a drug test to start a blog, there would even be a "Waving or Drowning." Maybe we're dealing with some homeless guy with a substance abuse problem, just logging on to a terminal in a public library somewhere. That would explain the desire for everyone else to get rid of all their stuff...

[Rick]

His 'engagement' leaves you a little short doesn't it? It's like being teased by the smell of a freshly baked pie on a window sill that's snatched away while your back is turned by a neighbor... you know, the regular guy next door everybody raves about...

Good luck while over there but keep in mind you're one noun or verb away from being deleted by Mike, especially when you're making sense... Making sense is anathema to an ideologue like Mike... I can't help but go to him often because he, for me, so typifies your average leftist, especially your average Religious leftist...

I still wonder what I, as his enemy, have to do to feel his love? It's a 'line' he seemingly has an exception for... would love to hear how he redefines the concept...

[Morgan K Freeberg]

Well, my post has been deleted. I don't know if that means something happened to my account or not...don't very much care. If I'm in that exclusive club with you, then whichever one of us is the last one to be Keith Olbermann's Worst Person in the World buys the first round.

[Rick]

No surprise...

And this way, it looks as if he's had the last word and left you speechless...

Manipulative...

But oh so loving and tolerant...

What a crock of crap... and it's so amazing to stop by and read the accolades the man's ideas and posts receives in the comments...

He, and those who think like him, are men without chests...

[Bill B. (AKA Theocoid)]

Yes, sadly, many Catholics who champion social justice pick and choose the bits of Catholic social doctrine they like. It's no question why that's the case. I always like to say that there's something there to tick everyone off. As it should be. Doing Christ's will isn't easy and isn't meant to be.

At the same time, we don't need to distort what's there. Catholic teaching supports private property rights very clearly, as well as the right to earn what one needs to retire without living in need. We also have obligations to do something with our surplus rather than hoard it. You're spot on concerning the left's blindness to subsidiarity. They almost always read it solely as an obligation on people closest to the problem as opposed to a right of the people closest to the problem. Catholic social teaching proposes both rights and obligations, and they're intimately related.

[Rick]

Lo and behold... Mike just posted on love:

The logic is simple and goes like this: Jesus said, "Love your neighbour", who could be described as those closest to us, not just physically, but also culturally and relationally. He also said, "Love your enemies", who could be described as those farthest from us, at least relationally. So we are to love those closest to us and those farthest from us. It seems to me that everyone between those two points should then qualify for love as well.

To put it simply we are to love everyone. (As I've said before this is a great relief because it removes the need to figure out who is worthy of my love and who is not.) This makes sense to me because it seems to line up with the radical love demonstrated by Jesus himself, over and over again. Love everyone.

Mike writing about loving everyone... is a little like Obama writing about being the President of everyone...

It's words... just words...

[Morgan K Freeberg]

This time, I'm backing it up here.
--------
Mike,

We'll just have to file this as my response to all your...stuff.

Obviously, anything else I say will get deleted, just like my last post.

[Leslie]

GREAT link, Morgan.
You don't happen to have a copy of what you said in your deleted post, eh? I was looking forward to reading it but missed it before it disappeared.

[Morgan K Freeberg]

Update: Got an off-line from Mr. Todd, says he's struggling to figure out what's going on, hasn't deleted anything from me. There's an entry saying I made a post, but the post itself has gone missing.

If that's the case, he's not the first blogger to be flummoxed by such a thing, and his message was courteous in tone & so forth. So I replied that I'd pass his comments along here...the accused is certainly entitled to a defense at the very least.

Take it for what it's worth.