I self-identify as "free catholic," not "liberal," so when Michael Bird rants about liberals, I don't take it personally.
For the first third of his essay, he plainly wants to appear reasonable, good-naturedly acknowledging that even he has been called a "liberal" on occasion. In a flush of generosity, he observes that, in some cases, "liberal" can even be good, such as "liberal giving" to the church, for example. In yet a further spasm of good will, he grants that liberals' don't really want to "destroy the faith."
Then follows the obligatory Spong-bash. He calls John Spong an "oxygen thief," implying that the man is not fit to live--the cheapest of cheap shots, which is followed by even more cheap shots: Liberals are good exegetes, even though "they might not believe what they’re reading." Liberals "have a genuine heart for the poor," but they don't really do much for them.
Michael Bird is not a liberal because he sees "a world with a God who remains active in it," which presumably liberals do not, and he believes in the scriptures, which liberals think is "negotiable."
So liberals don't believe in God or the Bible. The only stereotype left to trot out is the supposed liberal elitism. Oh wait, here it is:
The world looks on with a crooked smile as the liberals acclaim their entire concurrence with all the values of the left-wing intelligentsia. The intelligentsia embarrassingly acknowledge their concord with the theological left, they thanks (sic) the theological liberals for affirming all of their values, but bid them adieu as they do not need any religious tokens at this time.
One might fairly ask: What the hell does that mean? What "left-wing intelligentsia"? Who are we talking about here? "Entire concurrence"? And, specifically now, to what values do you refer? Can Bird provide an actual example of a member of the "intelligentsia" who "embarrassingly acknowledges" their religious soul-mate?
Not wanting to leave anything out, Bird goes on to accuse liberals of having absolutely nothing of any value--liberalism is merely a chaplain to the political left, a denunciation of true Christianity, and a "sacralizing of secular values."
But wait, there's more! Liberal Christians are "chaplains to Nero." A stalwart witness like, say, Michael Bird himself, would surely get fed to the lions by Nero for his forthright proclamation of the gospel, while a liberal Christian would probably be blessed by Nero for being open-minded.
Why, a liberal Christian would even worship Nero, calling Nero "Lord," while, of course, a pious martyr like Bird would never do such a thing.
This is, at last, a new twist--liberals as upholders of the status quo, propping up entrenched power. If asked which tradition within Christianity did the most to uphold secular power and assert its rights against oppressed minorities, most people would probably say the conservatives. Chrysostom and Ambrose were no liberals.
As for who helps the poor, my experience is mainly with Habitat for Humanity. In Habitat, mainline protestants provide--by far--the most support, both in terms of financial support and volunteer support.
In any case, it's difficult to find a person who self-identifies as "liberal" within Christianity. Mostly, this is because the definitions are different in religion than they are in politics. The word "liberal", in theology, refers to 19th century liberalism, which was mostly German, and is now quite dated.
One suspects Bird dashed off this little piece. (It still has a typo or two in it.) Somebody slipped some Tabasco Sauce into his oatmeal and that set him off on a rant that gained such momentum and fervor that, almost before he knew it, he had liberals on the side of Nero, who was, let it be noted, a conservative in both politics and religion.
Comments