|
Friday, June 27,
2003
The Value(s) of our Families (5): How Progressives Can
Talk About "Family Values"
Yesterday I tried
to explain why people--Left and Right, Christians, Jews
and Muslims--have such a visceral dislike for the Christian
Right. What engendered our intense disdain was an agenda that
was willing to use government power to force everyone to conform
to their idea of how we should live combined with an attitude
that they come to the public square not to participate with
us but to dictate to us. I said that the CR is hampered in
its ability to engage in political discourse in a way that
is at least inoffensive by the rigidity and exclusivity of
its theology. My recommendation to them was that they should
either get out or politics or come to the discussion like
the rest of us--admitting that we might be wrong and that
our ideas and even principles are subject to modification
after receiving the critique of others.
Today I wish I could say that the Christian Right should
follow the example of us progressives in speaking about "family
values." But I can't. The fact is that we're not very
good at it. George
Lakoff has pointed it out in Moral
Politics: What Conservatives Know that Liberals Don't.
Amy Sullivan writes that Democrats
will never win in 2004 unless they learn to speak about
religion, morality and "family values." What we
do now seems to be poll, test phrases with focus groups and
shoot for the middle. There's no coherence, no vision and
certainly no
poetry.
As Sullivan points out, it's not that Democrats are less
religious than Republicans. We just don't know how to talk
about it in the context of politics. Getting more to the root
of it, we aren't comfortable talking about politics and religion.
Jack Sweeley re-examines
the beliefs and intent of the founding fathers and reminds
us that it was reason and the Enlightenment that was the foundation
for their Declaration and Constitution--not John 3:16. Progressives'
vision of America shares the founders' hope that this nation
would be a place where Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists,
atheists
and even Brights
not only live together in peace but also participate as
respected contributors to the building of this country. To
reject religious diversity is to reject cultural and ethnic
diversity. Surely most of us are past that xenophibic point.
Can progressives include religous talk as part of their political
conversation_ I must admit that I began
this blog thinking it was best for politics and the Church
if we kept religion completely out of politics. It would be
better to return, I thought, to the days of "pocketbook
politics" and the New Deal Coalition based on enlightened
self-interest. But there is no going back to those days. In
a democracy, it is the voters who determine which issues are
salient, and the voters
insist on discussing "family values."
Can progressives include religious talk as part of their
political conversation_ Can they do it without exacerbating
already simmering tensions between religious groups_ Can they
do it without legitimizing what the Christian Right has been
doing_ Can they do it and remain true to their vision of a
nation that is both truly diverse and harmonious_
I believe we can do all those things, but we will do them
better with fewer mistakes if we carefully consider how to
include religious talk before our leaders hurriedly start
to sprinkle their stump speeches with snippets of Bible verses
in order to respond to this ever more widely perceived deficiency.
We must do it in a way that promotes understanding and respect
for all religious traditions. We must do it in a way that
invites participation from all traditions while discouraging
any one tradition from dictating to the others. We must do
it in a way that also welcomes and ascribes equal value to
the contributions from those who identify with no religion.
These are very difficult challenges, especially in an environment
that has already been poisoned by the "my way or the
highway" approach of the Christian Right.
Don Browning's Commentary on "critical
familism" provides us with some good ideas about
how to meet those challenges. First, we can recognize that
all of us, whether religious or not, view our world through
metaphors, principles, ideas of "the good" and attitudes.
Most of us are hardly aware of these but consider them to
simply be "common sense." None of us operates purely
on a rational basis. None of us has a worldview entirely shaped
by an particular theological doctrine. When political discourse
enters into this territory, we must expect that anger can
easily be kindled in us and others and that everyone may feel
uncomfortable, even afraid, when they hear dearly-cherished
assumptions challenged. If we can overcome incipient anger
and fear and continue listening to one another, there is a
tremendous potential for growth in empathy for others and
self-understanding.
Second, we will do better if we stick to religious speech
drawn from metaphorical or narrative religious sources rather
than legal or doctrinal material. Metaphorical texts in the
Christian tradition include Hebrew poetry already noted on
this site that picture God as a loving mother
or father.
Such passages invite hearers to connect them to their own
deeply-held metaphors and "common sense." They also
elicit from them similar passages from their own religious
or non-religious traditions. They further rather than stifle
dialogue. Narrative passages work the same way. Everyone can
relate to a story whether or not they share the religious
beliefs of the storyteller. Narrative does not devalue any
hearer even as it encourages self-examination.
Legal and doctrinal material are best kept out of discussions
in the public square. While confessional communities may use
them in internal discussions, such texts tend to end productive
conversation and spark angry debate. I'm as guilty as anyone
of resorting too quickly to such passages. (As a Lutheran,
I'm very fond of Pauline material.) Polemic has its place.
I think it's appropriate and necessary as part of the way
to address the Christian Right whose goal, acomplished to
some degree in my part of the country, is to dominate political
and religious discussion. But progressives who would speak
about religion and politics, especially Christians, must be
aware of our majority status in this culture and avoid anything
that smacks of a special claim on truth. As I see the diversity
of the people linking to this site and discussing it, I am
trying to be more aware of that need.
Third, we must make clear that we do not expect or desire
that including religious talk in political discourse will
lead to anyone's conversion. We can hope for greater understanding
of our faith. We can work to dispel some of the misconceptions
about Christianity that have been created by the Christian
Right. But as soon as someone perceives that we're trying
to proselytize them, dialogue will end and rightly so.
Finally, we need to be ready to affirm the value of other
points of view. Using speech with the hope that it elicits
other metaphor and narrative from a diversity of sources,
we must respond with more than just "reflective listening."
Progressive Christians participating in a political discourse
enriched by religious talk can expect to have their own "common
sense" undergo change and evolution.
An approach to including religious talk in political discourse
that has these four characteristics can succeed in advancing
the progressive cause while remaining faithful to our core
belief in the value of diversity. I believe it can even celebrate
that diversity and augment our appreciation for the value
of worldviews different from our own. Rather than being a
validation of the way the Christian Right has conducted itself
in political discussion, it will be a tree bearing good fruit
to the shame of the Falwells and Robertsons and Reeds when
compared to the divisiveness and disdain for the Church that
they have born. It will confirm the wisdom of Jefferson and
Franklin and Madison who valued freedom of religious expression
while they abhorred the establishment of any one faith by
the state. It can change this country and us as we work together
toward the dream of a better future.
Obscure Bible passage of the day: Genesis
38
The passage is too long to reproduce here.
Comment
Life was close to impossible for a childless widow in the
world of the patriarchs so Tamar uses her wits to outsmart
her father-in-law and get what she must have to survive. Some
biblical stories were so interesting that they survived the
editing process even though they critiqued the existing power
structure.
New Guest Authors
In case you missed it yesterday, we welcome Father
Jack Sweeley as guest author of "How
The Radical Right Is Hijacking Christianity and America."
Jack is a priest in the Catholic Apostolic Church of Antioch
- Malabar Rite and an activist in abortion and adoptee rights.
Matt Zemek of "Matt
Zemek's Wellstone Cornerstone," has responded to
a query of mine by providing us with some background on the
perceptions and realities of papal infallibity
in the context of American anti-Catholicism.
Next Week
I'm from Missouri and raised by yellow dog Democrats. Guess
who one of my biggest political heros is. I've picked up Michael
Gardner's book Harry Truman and Civil Rights: Moral Courage
and Political Risks hoping there are some lessons in there
for us. I remember what Harry had to say about Nixon ("The
man doesn't know the difference between the truth and a lie.").
Can you imagine what he would have to say about GW_
Blogs Noted:
Feedback
Comment
Home
Thursday, June 26, 2003
The Value(s) of our Families (4): What's Wrong with the
Christian Right
One of the motivating factors behind my tackling "family
values" this week was an e-mail "conversation"
I had with well-known blogger Dean
Esmay. At my invitation, he had visited "The Right
Christians" and had a generally positive reaction except
for a link on my links page to the parody site Landover
Baptist Church. Dean considered Landover Baptist to be
a hate site and said so not only in his e-mail to me but also
in a post
on his blog that generated a lot of comment pro and con.
After considering what Dean said and reading the comments
to his post, I decided to remove the link because if someone
is going to find something upsetting on this site, I want
it to be what I or one of our guest authors has written.
Dean was kind enough to include a post about this site and
let me know in an e-mail that included two questions:
1) Is fear OF and prejudice TOWARD the Christian right
as dangerous as some of the paranoia and prejudice we sometimes
accuse the Christian Right of_
2) Is "separation of church and state" sometimes
simply a way to invalidate the legitimate
political goals and democratic rights of believers_
Examining my own attitudes, I had to admit they were fair
questions. I don't like the leadership of the Christian Right.
I consider them wolves among the sheep. And I began this blog
defending separation of church and state as a way of both
protecting the state and the Church from the destructive influences
of the CR.
There are many who feel as I do. Progressives and non-Christians
view the Christian Right leaders as power-hungry,
anti-democratic,
deceitful,
hypocritical,
and bigoted.
But it's not just lefties and the unsaved who have a problem
with the CR. Wyoming conservative Republican
Alan Simpson is fed up with zealots--and we know whom
he means. Even Mark
Racicot, who will depend upon the CR in 2004, doesn't
like them:
"People fear to educate them [CR opponents of gay
rights]. [They have] their own fear and lots of misinformation
and disinformation, which some do for political expediency."
Dean Esmay is right that there are plenty of ill feelings
toward the Christian Right. Are these feelings, found among
both the Left and Right, among Christians and non-Christians,
justified_ Is the Christian Right being treated unfairly_
I have spent the last two days examining both the agenda
and the political methodology of the Christian Right as they
have tried to make their case for their version of "family
values" over the past two decades. Their agenda is directed
at conforming
everyone in our society to their view of how people should
live: in famlies organized around a lifelong marriage
of a man and woman with the man having authority over wife
and children. When government threatens to interfere with
their goal, they want limited government as in the Parental
Rights and Responsibilities Act they're pushing in Congress.
When they need the government to enforce their views on those
who refuse to accept their vision, they're in favor of government
intrusion literally into citizens' bedrooms.
Such an agenda is unlikely to be popular among those who
do not share the Christian Right's fondness for patriarchy.
Many if not most women are not willing to have their choices
so circumscribed because of proof-texts drawn from twenty
or more centuries ago. Childrens' advocates are likely to
be skeptical that entrusting everything to the father/husband
will solve the problems in all families. No one is anxious
to be told by the government how they can behave as consenting
adults in their own beds. The Christian Right's readiness
to use government power to enforce their views whenever they
are unable to persuade people to freely adopt their ideas
is not likely to make them beloved.
It's not only their agenda that makes them such objects of
scorn and fear. The way they conduct themselves in the public
square is offensive to the rest of us. Handicapped by their
rejection of modernity and a resulting rigid system of theology
and ethics, the Christian Right enters political discourse
not to participate
but to dictate. Since they claim, either naively or disingenuously
(see Racicot above), that the policies they advocate are commanded
by God, they are unable to engage in the kind of give-and-take
that is politics in our republic (see Simpson above). When
they engage in dialogue about issues and underlying philosophies,
they are never really taking part in a two-way discussion.
Whoever disagrees with them disagrees with God and there is
no truth in them. They are incapable of actually changing
their minds or admitting they are wrong because of the truth
claims they make for their ideas as they enter the discussion.
The Bible that the Christian Right claims as their special
possession contains a number of models for how God's faithful
can interact with unbelievers. The list below is certainly
not exhaustive, merely illustrative, but even so it offers
a number of alternatives.
Believer/Unbeliever Interactions: Biblical
Models
The Christian Right likes to think of itself in the persecuted
prophetic
role. Given their political influence where I live, that's
beyond irony. More often the CR sounds like it prefers the
"Holiness Code" model: conform or else. If they
want to be accepted in the public square, they need to become
more familiar with the models provided by Jesus, Philip and
Peter. Evidence of attitudes of acceptance, participation
in dialogue in which they listen as well as speak, and--dare
we say it--real accomodation and change in some of their views
might impress the rest of us that the Christian Right is ready
to participate instead of just dictate. One
place to start might be the call for social justice being
issued by some Evangelicals in Alabama but quietly being resisted
by the state's Christian Coalition.
There is great risk here. Everyone who truly participates
in political discourse, especially when they advocate positions
that impact all of us, must expose their ideas and underlying
theological or philosophical bases to criticism. Real participation
also means openness to change one's own views. To engage as
anything but God's self-appointed spokesmen, the Christian
Right will have to be prepared to experience changes in its
own worldview and presuppositions. When they do that, sites
like Landover Baptist may no longer be funny to the rest of
us and the fear and suspicion with which they're currently
viewed may be replaced by respect and admiration.
Tomorrow
I'll discuss an Evangelical's critique of Browning's approach
to religion in public discourse and make some recommendations
for how progressives could approach "family values"
based upon those biblical models above.
Obscure Bible passage of the day: Acts 10:9-48
The passage
is too long to be reproduced. It describes Peter's visit to
the home of the gentile Cornelius in spite of Peter's lifelong
belief that he was not to associate with the uncircumcised.
Comment
Maybe the leadership of the Christian Right would benefit
from sitting down to dinner with some Log Cabin Republicans
and even Andrew
Sullivan instead of condemning
Mark Racicot for associating with them.
New Guest Author
Home
About the Founder
Allen H. Brill, founder of "The Right Christians",
is a private citizen and Christian who wanted to see viewpoints
of progressive Christians better represented in the public
forum. He provides a Weblog on issues involving Christianity
and politics that is updated five times a week.
Rev. Brill is an ordained Lutheran minister
educated at Concordia Seminary in St. Louis, MO. He is also
a member of the South Carolina Bar with a B.A. degree in Government
from Harvard College and a J.D. from the University of Virginia
Law School.
Home
About "The
Right Christians"
We thank the Rev.
Al Sharpton for our name. Confronted by an anti-abortion
protester at NARAL's January rally to celebrate the 30th anniversary
of Roe V. Wade, Rev.
Sharpton responded, "Young lady, it is time for the
Christian right to meet the right Christians." Our site
is not otherwise connected with the Sharpton campaign and
he is not responsible for its content nor we for his campaign.
We do appreciate his stating so succinctly what we have been
feeling for some time and wish him well.
"The
Right Christians" was founded by the Rev.
Allen H. Brill and is currently under his direction.
Home
Participate
You are invited to contribute to "The Right
Christians" by
submitting letters, articles or even a blog on a specific
topic. Use the Volunteer
Form to get started.
We have some ongoing opportunities
to participate:
We would especially like
to add the following:
Diverse Sources:
Roman Catholics, Jews,
Muslims, Buddhists and other religious groups; pastors or
former pastors of Evangelical or neo-Pentecostal congregations;
academics in the areas of church history or systematics
Experts in the following
areas:
contemporary Christian
music; the business interests of the Christian Right; "Christian"
publishing
Home
|