Washington’s God Story—and America’s
EJ is a friend, a great reporter and columnist—and in Souled Out he has again brought his enormous passion and formidable intellect to bear on American politics and religion in ways that benefit us all.
Having said that, let me challenge a key point underpinning the book’s thesis.
“Over the last two decades,” he says, “much of the public discourse was premised on the idea of religion as a right-wing force.” Actually, I think that’s true and false at once, and thus confused—and hence a central reason we are having difficulty thinking clearly about religion’s role in America.
It’s true that the professional “public discourse” classes—journalists, columnists, academics, pollsters, bloggers, politicians, and the like—have unabashedly swarmed around this thesis of “rightwing religious” dominance for thirty (not twenty) years. They used it initially to explain what was to them Jimmy Carter’s peculiarity—a Georgia peanut farmer who tells Playboy he’s committed adultery in his heart and ends up in the White House. Then, succumbing to the ancient, endless, unapologetic self-promotion of the televangelists--especially Jerry Falwell and the Moral Majority--they used it in the 1980s to “decode” Ronald Reagan’s ascendancy, and to “discover” how important a kind of religion that no one on the Upper West Side or in Georgetown or Cambridge practiced still is. Since then, this “conservative dominance of religion”---though at the heart of EJ’s message in Souled Out is that that conservative dominance is now waning (and/or redefining itself)—has owned the talkers’ and writers’ story of the world around us.
At the start, especially in the early Reagan years, this dominance story was a “shock and awe” tale, told by shaken East Coast elites in the press and universities, of triumphalist white evangelicals conservatives galloping out of the South like an avenging cavalry of saints—and then more broadly a tale of white religious conservatives, both evangelical and non-evangelical, Christian and non-Christian, drawn from across the country—and of the revolutionary impact they were having, on everything from abortion to Hollywood sex-and-violence to tax- and government-cutting and foreign and military policy.
It’s what I call Washington’s God Story.
But here’s why I think this “right wing dominance of religion” story is false: over eighty percent of Clinton voters in the 1990s, Gore voters in 2000 and Kerry voters in 2004 identified themselves as “religious” in exit polls—and I’m guessing at least eighty percent of the Democratic vote will say the same this coming November. So clearly millions upon millions of Americans have long counted themselves “religious”--but don’t behave in the voting booth, or think of themselves generally, as “a right-wing force” at all.
Personally, I think of this as the window onto America’s God Story.
It’s clearly not the same as Washington’s—and what’s quite evident, to me at least, is that the lived religious experience for these many millions has gone systematically underreported or misreported for years, in no small part because it's lacked the theatricality, cynicism, and venom of Washington's God Story. Yet it's a story that's far more important and encouraging to many of us.
So while the “discourse classes” have preoccupied themselves with the “dominance” narrative of an ultra-conservative branch over American religion and politics in general, much of the rest of religious America has quietly but steadily kept moving in a very different direction, in support of very different values--kinder, more far-sighted, and frankly more in line with values people EJ and I count as the best of America's religious and political traditions.
Take my own branch of America’s religious family. Mainline Protestants like the Episcopalians—who we mustn’t forget, have about as big a share of US population as their white evangelical cousins, and who fifty years ago were as Republican (albeit moderate) as white evangelicals were Democrats (albeit conservative)---now ordain women and openly-gay men and women, deeply committed themselves to civil rights at a time white evangelicals were fighting them tooth and nail, supported environmentalism early (and in far deeper ways than the emerging “stewardship” model among NAE evangelicals, I'd argue) and have consistently and honorably tangled with the Reagan, both Bush (and sometimes Clinton) administrations on issues from development aid for the poor, stem-cell research, AIDs funding and welfare reform, to nuclear weapons proliferation and the Central America to today’s war in Iraq to the misguided theology and cheap politicization of Washington’s faith-based initiatives.
Yet the underreported shift of those Mainline churches toward greater tolerance and tangibly more progressivism, not less, has been ignored—or treated as anomalous, or simply amusingly irrelevant--compared to the rightwing march of the white evangelicals. But why? Twenty years ago, the Washington Story justified this because evangelicals were supposedly “exploding”---“look at the megachurches!”-- while Mainliners were “collapsing”, in their death throes. But as we all know, factually that hasn’t turned out to be true.
From the 1970s to today, the white evangelical share of US population hasn’t been “exploding”; it’s been nearly constant, between a fifth and a quarter. And big evangelical denominations like the Southern Baptists have been losing membership by the millions, while membership in mainline churches has been steady or even growing.
And what of the policy triumphs of conservative evangelicals? I don’t see a long list. What about the ongoing presence and power of The Moral Majority, the Christian Coalition, the Promiskeepers, Eagle Forum, the Bakkers, Jimmy Swaggert, Ralph Reed…..you see where I’m going here. On the list of policies mainliners have been prominent allies in fought for, I’d for one point to this: we now have a woman and an African-American in serious contention for the presidency of the United States. And I’ll be happy to add to that list.
So for starters, let’s have a discussion about how and why Washington’s God Story has been so different from America’s these past thirty years---and about why, out in the real world, a conservative politico-religious agenda may have transfixed elites but never grew out from its base to create an effective majority on any of the Religious Right’s oft-trumpeted agenda.
Comments (11)
Well I'm sorry but the alignment between Christianity and government power throughout history has been the rule - not the exception. This is known.
The biggest issue facing Christianity is not Republicans or Islamo-fascism. It's quantum physics and the Jesus Seminar. See the film "What the Bleep - Down the Rabbit Hole" and the book The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant as a start.
For most Christians - there is only one salvation....which is accomplished by accepting Jesus and rejecting the wisdom of all others.
For most Christians - there is only one truth....which is understood by reading the King James version of the Bible and rejecting all other writings as wrong.
Its time for mankind to get past this medieval and childish notion and to focus on Consciousness.
Gotta make way for the Homo Superior
February 12, 2008 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hummmm.
Most Chirstians...
Well this is one Christian who finds the Jesus Seminar fascinating and a confirmation of his faith, not a repudiation of it.
Rejecting the wisdom of others?
There is no theological reason in Christianity to reject new wisdom. New theology, well that's different, but wisdom? No problem.
And any jump to Homo Superior will have to have internalised the parables of Jesus in his heart. I think that's a pretty safe bet.
February 12, 2008 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yet the underreported shift of those Mainline churches toward greater tolerance and tangibly more progressivism, not less, has been ignored
Sure. With few exceptions, the "mainline" churches and their members do nothing to call attention to themselves. We carry our faith and let it guide our choices and actions without wearing it on our sleeve or shouting from a hilltop about it. How much does that differ from evangelicals, who are driven to--imagine this--evangelize! They hold big, stadium-filling rallies. They invite the press to cover them. Their leaders stand in pulpits and champion political views, and recommend political candidates. Who do you think is going to get more coverage? Who do you think reporters will attribute greater influence to, when considering the effect of religion on politics and government? That community got up and voted in droves, and let people know about it. My fellow Catholics didn't present like that. Did your fellow Episcopalians?
Why did that conservative religious agenda fail to take firm hold? Because candidates saw that evangelical community as a "base" they could take advantage of. They said what that community wanted to hear, assuming (correctly) that it would buy them votes. "I'm a good Christian, just like you! I stand for what you stand for!" But it was just a sop, it was never serious. Politicians (as is common) made promises they had no intention of keeping. Look at our policies over the last eight years. How many of them represent "good Christian values", by either evangelical or "mainline" standards?
No, the evangelical community was used. I'd be furious if I belonged to it. And I think a lot of them are, if the rumblings are true that many of them might stay home this November, rather than vote for a Republican nominee who doesn't speak to them.
February 12, 2008 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that the majority of those Americans who think themselves religious are not right wing, But in the political sphere minorities that have a clearly defined agenda, are well organized, and well-funded can dominate discourse. That's the reason for the right-wing Christianist ascendancy since the 70s. So until the Christian majority has an agenda and organizes around it, it will continue to play a secondary role in shaping American religious discourse, especially as it affects developments in the political sphere.
February 12, 2008 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
And what of the policy triumphs of conservative evangelicals?
Well, in seven short years the graduates of the Regents University Law School have, when unable to destroy it, succeeded in Christianizing the government of the United States of America.
Sounds like a pretty decent triumph to me.
February 12, 2008 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Richard: How does your argument work if we consider the actions, and not just the affirmations, of conservatives and progressives at the state and local level? Here, the percentages and parties that characterize voters is less relevant than who actually organizes and presses for specific political changes. Alan Rosenthal's very informative study of state legislatures suggests that it is the ability of narrow interest groups to drive agenda's at this level that has made it much harder for governments to legislate with the long term best interests of their constituents in mind (see his The Decline of Representative Democracy: Process, Participation, and Power in State Legislatures, CQ Press, 1997). It is my experience after three years of full-time faith-based political activism at the state level, and many more years as an academic following religion and politics, that too often it is the conservatives who are better at driving agendas in state and local politics. If this is correct in more than a few places, then it would at least qualify your characterization of America's God Story.
February 12, 2008 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
There are (at least) two Richard Parkers who teach at Harvard. The one who wrote this post is at the Kennedy School. However, the guy pictured next to the byline is a professor at the Law School. Compare:
http://www.law.harvard.edu/news/2006/05/19_parker.php
http://media.www.ksgcitizen.org/media/storage/paper223/news/2007/04/18/Features/Richard.Parker.Son.Of.A.Preacher.Man-2869060.shtml
Whoever is in charge of such things should change the photo.
February 12, 2008 5:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not very comfortable with Evangelicals nor the idea of mixing religion with politics. It took far too long and far too many lives to wrestle government from the hands of the church and I for one am in no hurry to see it return in even the slightest of ways. If we want to talk about faith or the ambiguities of "morality" then let's do it over a beer or a coffee or something. Let's do it socially, not politically. They say religion is one of the things you're not supposed to talk about in a bar but I say that it's something you shouldn't talk about in Washington. Do it in a bar!
Now let me be clear - I do not have any problems with people and whichever faith they chose to adhere to. If that is their personal choice fine. I also do not have a problem with a person running for office who professes to believe in this faith or that. That's their personal choice and that's what this country supposedly represents. But I do have a problem when faith is allowed to be used as a driving force or a force of influence within the political arena. When it is allowed to effect everyone whether they agree with that faith or not things will turn sour. It does not belong in our nation's politics and it will lead to no good. Keep them as far away from one another as humanly possible...then push them apart a bit further. Never stop pushing.
If a faith wants to "save" people or society or what have you, do it on the street. Do it in the churches. Preach. Teach. Lead by example. Do not run out to get elected or manipulate politics in an attempt to force people to believe a particular faith. That's going to lead to terrible consequences. It always has. Take all of the silly "issues" that the Evangelicals incredibly consider important - abortion for example - why not talk to the fold instead of mucking up a system that's meant to offer freedom of choice? If abortion were left alone and Evangelicals convinced everyone to simply not have them (or abstain or w/e you'd like) then I suppose no one would have abortions right? Problem solved? I know that's a bit simplistic but the recent move into the political theater by religion appears to me to be in direct response to it's loss of power over it's own congregations. Sure people show up on Sundays but do they really give a damn? Look around and I think the answer's pretty clear. I just hope that they refocus their efforts on the fold and leave the nation and it's politics well enough alone. Please, I implore you...leave it alone.
I fondly remember my grandfather when I was growing up. There was no way you could ever drag him into a church outside of someone's wedding. He'd say, "if I want to talk to God I can manage just fine right here. I don't need to go to church to talk to him. No thank you." And I liked that. In fact I loved that. Lest people forget, the "church" didn't even want the bible distributed nor published in a language the common people could read. They wanted to TELL people what it meant, not for them to interpret it on their own. My grandfather knew this I think. He knew it and wanted no part of it. He knew how he felt about things and didn't need a church telling him he was right or wrong. So he lived his life with exactly the amount of religion in it that he wanted. No more and no less. In the past when a person reinterpreted the bible they risked being tried for heresy. Now we risk having them run for office or getting appointed to the Supreme Court. None of these options sounds very appealing to me. Religion and it's influence should be one of personal choice not political maneuvering or force. I like to think that when I'm my grandfather's age I'll be able to say the same thing he said to me to my grandchildren. I hope I'll be living in a country that doesn't force the church's views onto me through Washington D.C. and politics. And I hope I'm not nervously looking over my shoulder before trying to convince my grandchildren that the Earth isn't 6000 years old and it's not the center of the universe.
February 12, 2008 6:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
The evangelical religious have not passed the social policies they seek on a national level, but on the state level, they have limited access to abortion, made our inalienable rights subject to majority rule and instituted a prison binge that will bankrupt many states as well as passing anti-gay and anti-gay marriage legislation. That attitudes in this country has simultaneously become more accepting and tolerant only underscores their success.
Far more sweeping however, is their takeover of the courts. We are only beginning the see the damage wrought by allowing religious fanatics with no loyalty to the constitution into our courts.
February 12, 2008 7:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
The word "faith" is not synonymous with "religious dogma."
No one seeks to introduce "faith" into the public square; "people of faith" seek to introduce their particular church's statements concerning moral questions. Some would add that in communicating the proposition they are acting as a conduit, only. "From God's lips to your ears."
Please do not use the term "faith" when what you mean is some sort of Catholic or Protestant religious infallibilism.
February 12, 2008 9:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Where are these statistics coming from:
From the 1970s to today, the white evangelical share of US population hasn’t been “exploding”; it’s been nearly constant, between a fifth and a quarter. And big evangelical denominations like the Southern Baptists have been losing membership by the millions, while membership in mainline churches has been steady or even growing.
February 12, 2008 9:56 PM | Reply | Permalink