(Photo from Guardian.co.uk, 2008)
In the previous essay I explained by even Bible-believing “Christians,” much less agnostic “Christians” like me, cannot use the term Christian, since the far-right conservatives have defined the term to their satisfaction.
Well, then what term can moderate Christians, or agnostic followers of Jesus, use? I suggest “Bleeding Hearts.”
And why not? That is what the conservatives, especially the religious conservatives, already call us. They intend it as an insult. But maybe we should just embrace it. I remember a 60 Minutes interview of Studs Terkel back when I was a youth in the 1960s or 1970s. Mike Wallace or Morley Safer or somebody asked him what he thought of being called a Bleeding Heart. His answer was immediate and passionate: Terkel said that he was not offended by this term, because it referred to the bleeding heart of Jesus Christ, of which he was not ashamed.
Progressive Christians, and Christian agnostics, identify with the loving side of Jesus, as depicted in the gospels, which includes Jesus dying on the cross not as a theological technicality but pouring forth is life blood and love. This is what is meant by Bleeding Heart.
Conservative Christians identify mainly with the Jesus of Revelation, who rides a white horse and has a sword sticking out of his mouth. Conservative Christians look forward to the Battle of Armageddon in which the earth literally runs knee-deep in human blood. I am not making this up. I heard on Christian radio (the Bot Radio Network back about 2004). Their main, and almost exclusive, focus is on the Apocalypse, and their message is, Bring it on! Some of them literally—I know from firsthand accounts—think Barack Obama is the Antichrist of Revelation.
I think we should just call ourselves Bleeding Hearts, putting ourselves into clear opposition to the “Christians” who look forward to bleeding battlefields.
No comments:
Post a Comment