By Living Waters

The Troubles of Tangled Thoughts:
Assessing Alisa Harris’s Aspirations

Michele Bachmann is a force, much like Sarah Palin. And many people love to hate her . . . to hate them, especially women of the left.

Personally, I appreciate both Bachmann and Palin, though neither is what I conceive of as the best hopeful for the next president of the United States. On the other hand, I can’t imagine either being less desirable for that position than President Obama.

Bachmann’s meteoric ascent has caused opposition to rise up, zombie-like, and hobble after her in the hopes of extracting something of her life. The feeding frenzy is on. Even newcomers are out cutting their teeth, grasping at Bachmann’s heels in the hopes of a bite of brain glory.

Enter Alisa Harris, an aspiring Christian writer living in New York City. Harris is an among the tens-of-thousands of Summit Ministries‘ alumni living, studying and working in virtually all professions and across many parts of the world. While retaining her faith in Christ, Harris has parted ways with many of Summit’s worldview convictions, looking back on her past as something worthy of being left behind.

Indeed, many views mentioned in her recent CNN Belief Blog post she rightly has jettisoned, and none too soon. Racism and a racist view of the Civil War never have been taught by Summit Ministries. Unfortunately, Harris conflates her recollections of different organizations, avoiding the tedium of careful distinctions and failing to avert the infelicities of insinuations and innuendos.

Harris cunningly has snatched an opportunity to surf in Bachmann’s wake, to publicize her new way of thinking, and otherwise to proclaim to the world that she has found a more authentic expression of her faith in a more Progressive political perspective.

In her post, Harris not only reveals her newfound Progressive posture, she has the temerity to claim, “I could have become Michele Bachmann.” Well, perhaps that is so. If Harris had the character and ambition, she too could be on a path to greatness. And there may yet be time. Harris is old enough to change her mind and young enough to have written her first memoir. Only time will tell.

In the meantime, Harris has opted to mimic the patricidal angst of Frank(y) Schaeffer, sneering at her parents’ faith, claiming enlightened rationality, and intimating all the while finally to have found an authentic Christian life. One could only hope. Well, one can at least hope Harris does not mimic Frank(y)’s tragic trajectory of apostasy.

“Over the years I began to doubt what I’d been taught,” confesses Harris, “that we could find in the bible the final answers to our questions about the minutiae of 21st century tax policy and the path to economic growth.” Really? The minutiae of contemporary tax policy . . . in the Bible? Surely she jests.

In striking contrast with Harris’s youthful simplicities, Bachmann earned an LL.M. in taxation from William and Mary School of Law, then practiced the trade. Whatever one might otherwise think of Bachmann, she is a doer.

“I saw Christians yell at gay activists, obsess over sex, and enforce ideological purity instead of reducing abortions or helping the poor,” recalls Harris, comfortable as she dons her self-satisfied, liberated, liberal bona fides.

Yet again by contrast, in addition to raising their five children, the Bachmanns fostered twenty-three teenage girls. Now that is helping people. Whatever one might think of Bachmanns, they are givers and doers.

Perhaps most revealing of the caricature Harris has (correctly) jettisoned for her (unfortunately) Progressive ideology is found in this statement: “I have abandoned neither politics nor my Christian faith but the idea of a ‘worldview’ where all spiritual questions have political answers, and all political problems have spiritual solutions.”

Well, and that is a good thing too! I cannot imagine where Harris ever gained such an odd view that “all spiritual questions have political answers,” but I’m certainly glad she no longer holds it. It sounds too much like leftist Liberation theology.

As for Harris’s recollection that “all political problems have spiritual solutions,” apart from some Anabaptists and Pietists, I can’t think of anyone but perhaps New Agers who remotely suggest such a thing.

What is perhaps most ironic is the title of Harris’s youthful memoir, Raised Right: How I Untangled My Faith from Politics. Given that title, one might suppose that she holds her faith in one hand and her politics in another, and never clasps them together. But that would be a mistake. After all, she concludes her confessional by admitting her rage (is that proper?) — allegedly inspired by the Old Testament prophets — a rage against the suffering of the poor and the exploitative practices of the rich and powerful.

So, lets try to be clear. Harris has not actually untangled her politics from her faith after all. No, wait, she has. Her book title says so. No, wait, she hasn’t. She said so. Or perhaps Harris now has untangled her politics from her faith and opted for a new worldview. Honestly, Harris’s message is yet a bit muddled.

Is Harris a young lady who has embraced Progressive ideology, attempting to baptize it with the Bible, and putting herself forward as a more faithful Christian than Michele Bachmann? Perhaps. If so, she would find agreeable company among post-Evangelicals and a few others.

However, Bachmann does more than just talk and protest. She has fought against injustice in the tax code, labored for economic freedom, struggled against the corruption of the rich and powerful, cared for her family, and lovingly fostered dozens of wounded and suffering children. Bachmann has sought to answer political questions with political solutions, and spiritual questions otherwise. Bachmann is a doer.

Could Harris have been Michele Bachmann? Only if she had seen things differently, both in her youth and at present. What Harris could have been, and still could become, is someone who puts her faith into practice and not merely into protests and self-promotion. She protested as a child. She continues that practice today. But snatching at the heels of the doers is no recipe for greatness.

Kevin James Bywater, Director
Summit Oxford Study Centre

By way of full disclosure: I have been on full-time staff with Summit Ministries for nineteen years. My wife and I have given countless hours of our lives for the wellbeing of the many young people who learn and eat and pray at Summit Ministries. It is with a heavy heart that we periodically hear echoes of public criticisms, even downright denunciations, from a few of our alumni. It is not that such actions are unexpected. We know all too well that some who have participated in the Summit programs have found themselves present with an absence of sincere willingness. But we are grateful that these are a diminished minority of our alumni.

By of way clarification: While we are hearing again and again that Michele Bachmann was on the board of Summit Ministries, this is not correct. I understand that she worked with others to see Minnesota youth attend Summit conferences. Of course, we are pleased to hear Michele speak so highly of David Noebel and the work of Summit Ministries, and particularly of David’s classic worldview study, Understanding the Times.

Recommended Reading

Arthur C. Brooks, Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth about Compassionate Conservatism.

Arthur C. Brooks, The Battle: How the Fight between Free Enterprise and Big Government Will Shape America’s Future.

David A. Noebel, Understanding the Times: The Collision of Today’s Competing Worldviews.

Jay Richards, Money, Greed and God: Why Capitalism Is the Solution and Not the Problem.

I am looking forward to getting this book in my hands.

Amazon.com: Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith (9780830839353): Douglas Groothuis: Books.

This essay is worth reading and pondering with attention and care:

Are Judaism and Christianity as Violent as Islam? :: Middle East Quarterly.

Opportunistic ideologues are exploiting the murderous actions of Anders Breivik’s killing spree to accuse conservatives and conservative Christians, yet again, of inspiring or inciting violence.

The details are becoming more clear as Breivik’s work is analyzed. What is known at this point is that he was no “fundamentalist Christian” (as the New York Times would have it). Apparently he advocates decreasing population, even by starvation, as well as eugenics. He loves Darwin and thinks “Christian” means something like, non-Muslim European. While such positions show that his convictions are other than identifiably Christian, additional observations are in order in light of the media circus.

First, without question, Breivik’s actions were unqualifiedly evil, entirely unjust, and deeply irrational. In short, he is an moral monster.

Second, to associate Breivik’s wicked actions with Christian or political conservatives is slanderous and disingenuous. For instance, if we were to take a poll of any large body of Christians we would not find no support for his actions. There were no celebrations in the streets of the Bible belt. There are no conservative Christians on TV waffling about and suggesting that perhaps there was some justification to his actions.

This stands in marked contrast with, for instance, the tens of thousands of Muslims in the U.K. who have note their support of the “legitimacy” of the London 7/7 bombings, not to mention the many Muslims who honor the likes of Bin Laden and lament his death. One might also mention the large numbers of Muslims who support terrorist organizations like Hezzbollah or Hamas, let alone Al Qaeda.

Again, the attempts to associate Breivik with conservative Christians is disingenuous and desperately partisan. The subtext of moral equivalency is desperately impoverished.

Third, so, when is an ideology responsible for violence? That query sometimes gets muddled by the fact that advocates of any ideology may become violent. Even peace activists can be violent! Does this mean that peace kills? Of course not. (And what could be worse than being attacked by a mob of pacifists?!)

However, if an ideology advocates violence, then that is more than suggestive. In addition, if a large number of adherents engage in violence, this too may be an indicator.

On these grounds, one cannot judiciously point to Timothy McVeigh or, now Anders Breivik, and infer that the ideology they held (and just what was the singular ideology they held?) “inspired” their actions. (Besides, the squirrely concept of “inspired” is indeterminate and serves us not at all.)

Fourth, Breivik quoted from conservatives like Robert Spencer, Theodore Dalrymple, and Melanie Phillips, and yet those authors never have advocated or encouraged violence (according to my knowledge). In fact, in their work, they have decried violence — domestic, as well as terroristic. Clearly Breivik’s values were not the same as these conservatives.

Fifth, when a murderer quotes someone else, no matter how many times, this does not mean we should leap to infer guilt by association. Indeed, I understand Breivik also approvingly quoted President Obama. What should be inferred from this? Nothing, of course, and this despite Obama’s violent actions against Muslims overseas, most recently in Libya.

Sixth, a core value of western civilization is the rule of law, something Breivik apparently does not share. Not only did he flaunt the law, he knowingly stalked unarmed innocents in diametric opposition to the heart of justice within western civilization. Perhaps he is a psychopath who surmised that he could defend justice through obviously unjust means. Such reasonings are the products of paranoid irrationality, if not insanity. (Please don’t misunderstand: I should think his premeditation tells against the technical charge of insanity, though clearly he was self-deluded.)

Seventh, another core value of western civilization is democracy, seeking change through voice and vote. This, again, is something Breivik obviously does not share.

Eighth, some suppose that any words critical of Islam may be said to inspire or incite hatred or violence. Such a supposition is stillborn. Nonetheless, any knowledgeable person who appreciates the liberties of western democracies would be concerned about the strictures of Sharia Law. For the sake of women worldwide, we must voice our disapproval of such usually cruel punishments as cutting off hands, public stonings, and the like, not to mention the daily dishonor and inhumanity of being forced to cover your face or being barred from driving (as in Saudi Arabia, the land of the Muslim holy sites of Mecca and Medina).

Ninth, some groups and individuals actually do promote violence, expressly and explicitly. We must not turn a blind eye to them while fending off fallacious and disingenuous slanderous hacks in the media and blogosphere.

Tenth, we must not overlook Breivik’s admission to using mind-altering drugs.

It increasingly is claimed that “sexual orientation” is the result of one’s genes — often with an allusion to “the gay gene,” usually coupled with a claim that practitioners are “born that way,” and, in religiously theistic subcultures, that “God made me/us/them that way.” This line of reasoning has recently been proffered most staunchly in support of same-sex marriage. It deserves serious inquiry.

Now, the “gay gene” theory is disputed and remains at some distance from being scientifically established. Far, far to often advocacy science blurs the distinction between discoveries and impositions. So, one must be cautious with such proposals.

Additionally problematic for such a proposal are analogies to genetic dispositions to alcoholism, pedophilia, violence, and other generally acknowledged disorders. As such, even if one were to proffer the “gay gene” position, one would be obligated to make an additional case that not all genetic dispositions are desirable, even if they were established to be otherwise naturally occurring.

However, even those most persuaded of the existence of a determinative “gay gene” do not assert that all practitioners of same-sex relations are genetically predisposed. This means that some practitioners are supposed to have chosen their sexual practices, rather than having been genetically predetermined toward them. This raises several acute questions for the view that people are “born that way,” and thus for the inference that same-sex marriage should be deemed a right (because same-sex attraction is genetic and therefore natural).

For instance, if genetic disposition is to be what legitimizes same-sex practice, and thus invites the allowance for or promotion of same-sex marriage, should it not be incumbent upon claimants to establish that those who engage in the practice do carry the supposed “gay gene”? In other words, it often is assumed that precisely because it is a genetic disposition, it is therefore natural and therefore should be socially legitimate (despite the persisting questions noted above that not all genetic predispositions are deemed socially acceptable).

If the occurrence of the “gay gene” is what makes same-sex practice “natural”; and if it is argued that since it is natural, it should be socially permitted; and if it is argued that since it should be socially permissible, same-sex partners should be allowed to marry; then it stands to reason that same-sex practice is only natural among those who have the disputed “gay gene.” As such, an exam could determine whether someone is inclined to what is truly natural for them.

Of course, one fully expects such a line of inquiry to be dismissed by proponents of same-sex marriage. However, if this line of inquiry is dismissed, then proponents will no longer have available an appeal to genetic dispositions in order to argue that same-sex practitioners are “born that way” and thus doing only “what is natural” for them.

Additionally, if such a line of investigation is dismissed, then it would seem more likely that the proposed legitimacy of same-sex relations (and thus of same-sex marriage) would rest on pure will. Personal choice would become what legitimates one’s selected sexual practice. As such, what would be “natural” would have no necessary genetic recourse but would rest purely in what is chosen. Yet just here the specter of the analogies comes to the fore yet again: one may choose suicide, rape, polygamy, incest, necrophilia, bestiality, alcoholism, self-mutilation, or any number of other personal and social disorders (some of which may be consensually selected). As such, if one promotes choice as the determiner of legitimacy, one is burdened to provide qualifications to limit choice so as to exclude what is illegal (if not what is immoral).

What of the one who intervenes in a chosen suicide, who fends off a rapist, who opposes polygamy, who lobbies against incest, who is repulsed by necrophilia and bestiality, who has interest in the well being of alcoholics and the wholeness of self-mutilators? Are they to be disparaged merely as anti-choice?

Lines of inquiry such as these enable us to unearth assumptions harbored by proponents of different perspectives. And such inquiries are certainly appropriate when it comes to questions of citizens’ rights, natural rights, human rights, or government granted rights. As Mark Steyn recently observed regarding a related query: “If the state creates a human right . . . and extends it only to certain interest groups, it is quite naturally incentivizing membership in those interest groups. So, how we define the criteria for membership is a legitimate subject for public discourse.”

Missile Defense – 33 Minutes.

In that moment the whole moral conflict of modern society played out in front of me. I listened politely to the nurse as she explained her philosophy, but when she momentarily glanced down at her watch, I looked up at the orderly standing guard in the hallway behind her and I smiled and nodded at him ever so fleetingly, to convey my approval of their illicit life-affirming deeds.

via Zombie » Death Channels.

Miroslav Volf ruminates on divine wrath and writes the following:

The apostle Paul ascribed to God…”judgment,” “condemnation,” even God’s “wrath” (see Romans 1:18-3:20)… [L]et’s examine the appropriateness of God’s wrath, the strongest form of God’s censure…. I used to think that wrath was unworthy of God. Isn’t God love? Shouldn’t divine love be beyond wrath? God is love, and God loves every person and every creature. That’s exactly why God is wrathful against some of them. My last resistance to the idea of God’s wrath was a casualty of the war in the former Yugoslavia, the region from which I come. According to some estimates, 200,000 people were killed and over 3,000,000 were displaced. My villages and cities were destroyed, my people shelled day in and day out, some of them brutalized beyond imagination, and I could not imagine God not being angry. Or think of Rwanda in the last decade of the past century where 800,000 people were hacked to death in one hundred days! How did God react to the carnage? By doting on the perpetrators in a grandparently fashion? By refusing to condemn the blood bath but instead affirming the perpetrators’ basic goodness? Wasn’t God fiercely angry with them? Though I used to complain about the indecency of the idea of God’s wrath, I came to think that I would have to rebel against a God who wasn’t wrathful at the sight of the world’s evil. God isn’t wrathful in spite of being love. God is wrathful because God is love. (Free of Charge: Giving and Forgiving in a Culture Stripped of Grace, 138-9).