Amy Sullivan: In Good Faith
A few weeks ago, Jim Wallis pledged that we who write about the Religious Right--including those of us on this blog--would not treat them the way they have treated us. Which is to say, we will always keep in mind that, as I'm constantly reminding my mom, even Karl Rove is a child of God and should be treated as such.That does not, however, mean that some of us will be shy about pointing out instances when our interlocutors on the right seek to muddy the facts, engage in hypocrisy, or speak about us in decidedly un-Christian terms. And before you start yelling "Plank in your eye!", I spend much of my time--some would say too much--taking folks on the left to task when they use stereotypes to describe religious conservatives or question whether people of faith should be involved in politics. Pointing out a few optical specks on the right is hardly unfair.
Let's start with Ralph Reed, who engaged in a mostly thoughtful and civil dialogue here with Jim last week, but who started the exchange by declaring himself shocked that anyone would think all religious conservatives care about is abortion and gay marriage. Where would anyone get that idea? And while he's right that many evangelicals, particularly in the grassroots, care about issues like poverty and human trafficking and the environment and health care, it's just disingenuous to argue that the leaders of the Christian Right publicly promote a broad agenda.
The three Justice Sundays so far have been about abortion and gay marriage and installing judges who would outlaw both. A letter the Alliance Defense Fund and Family Research Council sent out last week encouraging pastors to get involved with political issues mentions two, and only two: sanctity of life and protection of marriage. Ditto the material for the Values Voters Summit last weekend. Even Rick Warren, whose agenda has broadened quite a bit since the 2004 election, sent out a voter guide in November 2004 that highlighted five issues: abortion, abortion, gay marriage, human cloning, euthanasia.
If the leaders of the Christian Right decide that it's most important to focus directly on abortion and gay marriage, that's completely fine. But they shouldn't pretend otherwise, nor attack as uncharitable and dishonest those who question that decision.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
Friends contacted Focus on the Family and asked about poverty related issues and the response was a focus on abortion and gay marriage.
I do think that some "moderate" conservatives I know would support poverty relief, here and in other countries, but not because conservative groups are advocates for it. There is a sense of fairness... or justice... that motivates many of us, whether conservative or liberal (or in between).
There surely would be opportunity for bi-partisan efforts to appeal to conservative and liberal candidates and elected officials on this moral value. That could begin to occur if we could "find one another" (enthusiasts for justice (fairness) values) in our legislative and congressional districts and states.
Sojourners and Act for Change and Protestants for the Common Good and Catholic Relief Services could help make that happen.
I'm asking each of them them to consider a web registry so we can begin to do that.>
Posted by: Michael Hayes | September 28, 2006 2:13 AM
Too bad Wallis seems to have forgotten the pledge just a few days later with his attack on Jerry Falwell, based on the assumption that Falwell was saying something different than Falwell's quoted words said.>
Posted by: Bill Samuel | September 28, 2006 2:31 AM
"The three Justice Sundays so far have been about abortion and gay marriage and installing judges who would outlaw both."
--This statement is false. And you say only the religious right engages in nasty rhetoric? No conservative judge proposes to outlaw these things. Conservative christians want judges who will allow democratically elected legislators to vote on these issues. It's liberal judges who legislate on these matters from the bench.
When will Wallis, et al. ever condemn Roe v. Wade?>
Posted by: jessie | September 28, 2006 3:01 AM
What's needed is more than just recognizing Christians who happen to be on the other side of the political divide as "Children of God". That's a start, but what's really needed is for us to recognize each other as Christians.
That means, among other things, giving the other side a little bit of the benefit of the doubt on motives, on the ground that the Holy Spirit is present in their lives and their thinking. And that in turn means being slow to take offense.
As a conservative, I recognize Jim Wallis as a brother in Christ, and while I think he is wrong on a lot of issues, I think he means well. Furthermore I think the underlying principles he tries to advance are genuine, even if he persistently misapplies them in the political arena.
I think its time for Christian liberals to consider the possibility that something similar applies to Jerry Falwell.
I recognize this is hard. There's a lot at stake in all these political struggles and the tactics of our opponents can seem so vicious. And sometimes we really are vicious. I know I've done some things I'm not very proud of.
But the alternative is to have an argument that is not merely between Christians with different political views but an argument between two religious sects, each convinced they and they alone represent the True Faith.
Every now and then someone may make a statement that is utterly beyond the pale and when that happens we can give them all the righteous indignation we can muster. But the default presumption should be that most of the people here are Christians and their hearts are in the right place, no matter what we might think about their politics.
Wolverine>
Posted by: Wolverine | September 28, 2006 3:23 AM
Well said, Wolverine.>
Posted by: Westy | September 28, 2006 4:03 AM
Jessie,
Yeah. I noticed that, too. Amy seems to have fallen into the same trap that many who do not really understand government fall into, which is to assume that the justices get to enact laws. Many people on both sides of the aisle believe that, if Roe v. Wade is overturned, all abortions will be banned. Of course, that is not the case at all. This is an example of what happens when a passion for politics precedes understanding of the issues.
Ralph Reed was clearly not shocked that Jim Wallis made the assertion that conservatives only care about two issues. He seemed, rather, to be expecting it, and had a ready defense for his positions.
The links provided by Amy here revolve around the role of courts. Courts have very little to do with, for example, economic policy, which would explain why she sees no mention of "poverty, human trafficking and health care". Last I checked the courts had no say in human trafficking, although Ruth Bader Ginsburg thinks prostitution should be Constitutionally protected.
For the record, Rick Warren highlights abortion, gay marriage, stem cell research, cloning, tax exemptions for churches, the pledge of allegiance, the presence of the phrase "In God We Trust" on our currency, and euthanasia for the elderly. If this had been written two years later, he might have included eminent domain, though the courts had not yet levelled their preposterous decision in Kelo v. New London at that time. That would make ten issues that concern conservatives w/r/t the courts alone.>
Posted by: kevin s. | September 28, 2006 5:29 AM
Eminent domain hasn't received close to as much coverage as it should. Can we dare say that "progressive Christians" and conservative ones could unite on this? Or do those on the Left believe the courts have the ultimate say regardless? It certainly affects those who are poor.>
Posted by: HAC | September 28, 2006 9:20 PM
I honestly think eminent domain is on par with abortion in terms of its importance to the courts. If the courts determine (and they have) that we are not entitled to personal property rights, then there is no limit to what government may do.>
Posted by: kevin s. | September 28, 2006 9:46 PM
Amy's opening words:
"A few weeks ago, Jim Wallis pledged that WE who write about the Religious Right--including those of US on this blog--would not treat THEM the way THEY have treated US." (All caps mine)
Here's the problem as I see it: until we as Christians can get past the dichotomy of us/them, conservative/liberal, right/left, we have nothing to offer the conversation. So long as we perpetuate such polarization, all we are doing is adding more dirt and water to the mud fight.
I turn to Sojourners/Call for Renewal, Red Letter Christians, the God's Politics Blog, etc. because I know that though I am a theologically orthodox (I use this term because I believe it is historically more accurate, not because I have an aversion to the term "conservative") Christian, the so-called "Religious Right" does not speak on my behalf.
That being said, I can never allow myself to view the Religious Right as my enemy...despite any perceptions I might have about injustices done to me personally, to the nation, to the world, to the Church, or to the Gospel by my brothers and sisters who resonate with the theological and social agendas of the Religious Right. Even if my brothers and sisters want to make me a "THEM," as a disciple of Jesus Christ I feel compelled never (so far as I can manage, which should be pretty far with God's help) to make my brothers and sisters a "THEM" in contrast to my "US." And when I discover I have done so I should repent.
I long for other voices who will represent a new way, a more Christ-like way, rather than simply a politically equal and opposite reaction to the Religious Right. Unfortunately, so long as an us/them mentality lies at the heart of what is said, as is so clearly evidenced by Amy's openning sentence, not only will groups like Sojourners/Call for Renewal, Red Letter Christians, the God's Politics Blog, etc. continue to be suspected as "some sort of front organization for the Democratic National Committee" (see Diana Butler Bass's post today), but these suspicions will be for the most part fairly well founded.
Don't get me wrong, I still see a great deal of hope represented by the voices of Sojourners/Call for Renewal, Red Letter Christians, the God's Politics Blog, etc., but only insofar as these and other voices work to raise the discourse above the level of us/them.
I'm not naive (though I do hope to be like a child as Jesus encouraged his followers to be). I know that raising the level of discourse is easier said than done. But, as disciples of God's Christ, do we really have another option? The us/them mentality is just as integral a characteristic of Pharisaism as self-righteousness, moral superiority, or judgmentalism. Jesus made it abundantly clear that this way was not his way.>
Posted by: Billy | September 28, 2006 10:37 PM
Billy,
Well said. While I resent the untoward statements of the Falwell's and Robertson's of this world, I find their doppleganger on sites such as this.
I wish Sojourner's were a little more forthright about their political ends.>
Posted by: kevin s. | September 28, 2006 10:54 PM
I'm not unmindful that abortion is a hot button issue. But I am concerned that those who would outlaw abortion "know not what they do." Past experience indicates that anti-abortion legislation only effects the poor. Rich women will always be able to rid themselves of an unwanted fetus. Second, and even more important. "Throw away children" which is what an unwanted fetus becomes are a drug on the market. No body wants an unwanted baby unless the baby is in good health. Unfortunately, poor women who can't afford an abortion tend to produce unhealthy children. Third, at what point does overweening government become intrusive into the lives of its citizens. There are somethings of such a personal nature that should be left up to the individual.>
Posted by: John J. Rockefeller | September 29, 2006 3:55 AM
Amy,
I think you make a mistake when you assume that the Christian Right's political agenda represents all of the interests of politically conservative Christians.
Conservatives generally assign government a much more limited role than liberals do. Hence our "to do" list for government will tend to be a lot shorter.
It's not that we don't care about the less fortunate, we just don't expect the government to take the lead in addressing poverty.
Wolverine>
Posted by: Wolverine | September 29, 2006 4:34 AM
John,
If you substituted "infanticide" for "abortion", your statement would have the same meaning.>
Posted by: kevin s. | September 29, 2006 6:28 AM
Well said, Billy. Thanks for putting into words what I was wanting to write anyways. I grew up in a home/church/environment that was and is very much a part of the "religious right", and have in recent years began to grow very dissatisfied with much of the conservative agenda and rhetoric. Sojourners and the like have certainly peaked my interest as I've begun my search, but I have been a little displeased with the US vs. THEM mentality of the God's Politics blog. This is quite often what Satan wants. If we grow disgusted with something, he tries to pit us so deeply against it that we grow blind to the that which we originally may have stood for.
I just wonder at this point...am I going to go my whole life with an "other" political identification?>
Posted by: Jonathan | October 1, 2006 5:22 AM
Although I agree with much of the anti-US/THEM sentiment, I must ask, at what point is the US/THEM attitude good? The New Testament writing includes many warnings against false teaching and doctrine. The Church is certainly to be unified under the headship of Christ, but when someone makes out abortion to be acceptable, should we not draw the line? Perhaps this is an issue of semantics... Thoughts?>
Posted by: HAC | October 1, 2006 6:04 AM
"when someone makes out abortion to be acceptable, should we not draw the line?"
HAC, when YOU get pregnant by your father/brother/uncle/neigbour rapist, then come back and tell us about "lines".>
Posted by: curiouser and curiouser... | October 3, 2006 5:22 PM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?