Friday, November 9, 2012

Was the “Religious Right” a Mistake?


    One of the more controversial bloggers at Patheos, Frank Schaeffer ("Why I Still Talk to Jesus – In Spite of Everything" -- http://www.patheos.com/blogs/frankschaeffer/) recently had a blog post entitled "How Evangelicals Doomed the Republican Party, God, and (Maybe) America." He accuses Evangelicals of having a distorted view of reality, and of allowing themselves to be used as the pawns of billionaires and neoconservative warmongers. He cites as examples the denial of global warming and the unqualified support for Israel, which, he says, prevent us from finding sane and sensible solutions to these problems. "Touch it where you may the evangelical / Republican / billionaire alliance is doomed, it's doomed because the non-retributive Jesus is the true Lord, not a hate filled ideology of imperial overreach that is embraced by crazed and militarized right wing neoconservatives."
    One might wish that Mr. Schaeffer himself would imbibe a little more of the spirit of the "non-retributive Jesus," but there is an element of truth to what he says. Leaving aside for the moment the question of whether or not Evangelicals are self-deluded, the fact remains that they are in an uneasy alliance with Roman Catholics, Mormons, Libertarians, and establishment big business Republicans. Each faction can blame one of the others for the loss in the recent election. Did the Republicans lose because some of their candidates took "extreme" positions on abortion, thereby alienating women voters? Or was it because Mr. Romney was a multimillionaire who is out of touch with ordinary Americans? Both seem to have been factors.
    Looking ahead to the future, what is especially foreboding for social conservatives is that several states legalized same-sex marriage by popular vote, and the Democrats did especially well among women, minorities and the young, suggesting that changing demographics are working in their favor. Other pundits beside Mr. Schaeffer are saying that the Republican Party needs to change. But change into what?
    This is, in fact, a genuine dilemma. As Frank Schaeffer's late father, the famous theologian Francis A. Schaeffer, labored to point out, western civilization as a whole has experienced a seismic shift away from its Judeo-Christian moorings toward a more secular and materialistic orientation, and this raises the specter of an increasingly amoral and disordered society. One simply cannot stand idly by while he watches civilization collapse. Yet as the elder Dr. Schaeffer also pointed out, the philosophical underpinnings of orthodox Christianity are radically at variance with the naturalistic assumptions of modern secular thought. The younger Mr. Schaeffer concludes from this that Evangelicals (and presumably his conservative evangelical father) are simply deluded. But should Evangelicals allow the outside world to redefine their faith?
    As a Christian believer I would have to say "absolutely not." "We ought to obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29). It would be sheer folly to throw one's soul away for the sake of political expediency.
    What should we do then? Our first concern should be to remain faithful to Christ and maintain the purity of our testimony. This means that we must be especially wary of engaging in partisan politics. The mudslinging and vilification, the vested interests and power politics hardly adorn the gospel.
    Secondly, we must recognize that America is not likely to change for the better unless we change individual hearts and minds, and this can be accomplished best through evangelism. But we must be careful here to preach the whole message. Part of the reason for America's moral decline is that most modern preachers are reluctant to talk about sin. But the gospel is incomprehensible unless we lay out first what God requires from human beings in the way of moral conduct. And the truth be known, the church's own members need to repent and start living the life themselves. Actions, it has often been said, speak louder than words. Let the atheists and agnostics argue and debate all they want; they cannot argue against the example of a virtuous life.
    This does not mean, however, that we must remain silent in the face of encroaching evil. We can protest. We can write letters and hold demonstrations. We can demonstrate compassion by extending the helping hand. But let us never sully the name of Christ with partisan bickering. It only confuses the issues and undermines our credibility.
    The way to reform society has been laid out for us: it is the power of the Word of God. "And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free" (John 8:32).

9 comments:

  1. I follow Frank Schaeffer's blog, though of course I don't automatically agree with him. He does come across as an angry ex-member of the religious right. I presume he realizes that.

    I agree with a lot of what he said in the post that you are discussing, but I am not reading it in the same way that you are.

    Leaving aside for the moment the question of whether or not Evangelicals are self-deluded, ...
    Why leave that aside? When I see them as deluded, that is not a comment on their theology. It is mostly a comment on their view of reality, including their denialism of global warming.

    I don't have a problem with American citizens engaging in political and moral arguments. It is entirely proper that they should. And whether they are evangelical Christians should be irrelevant to that. However, conservative Christianity has not allowed that to be irrelevant. They have engaged in the debate, emphasizing their role as Evangelicals. That's what I see as a serious mistake. It is bad politics and it is bad as religious practice.

    If conservative Christians think that America is going morally astray, they should be engaging in the debate. Instead, they are attempting to impose their own view by means of legislative fiat, in an unholy alliance with commercial interests.

    Conservative Christianity has lost the debate over gay marriage. That debate was conducted at the grass roots. The supporters did very well in presenting their case. Conservative Christianity mostly failed to participate in that grass roots campaign, and instead took a high handed legislative approach.



    ReplyDelete
  2. I think you lost me there, somewhere. You say that Evangelicals should engage in debate, then you say that they lost the debate, and then criticize them for trying to get legislation enacted. In politics isn't the goal of the debate legislation?
    In "The Audacity of Hope" Barack Obama made this observation: "To say the men and women should not inject their 'personal morality' into public-policy debates is a practical absurdity; our law is by definition a codification of morality, much of it grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition." But then he went on to add this comment: "What our deliberative, pluralistic democracy does demand is that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument and amenable to reason." He then said, on the subject of abortion, "If I want others to listen to me, then I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all." It sounds good, but in today's cultural climate what values are recognized as universal, and what principle is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all?

    ReplyDelete
  3. In politics isn't the goal of the debate legislation?

    The primary aim should be to get the people on your side, and then to enact legislation that is the will of the people. I'm saying that the religious right has skipped the first of those steps.

    Most of what you quote from Obama is consistent with the idea that one must get the support of the people and not try to force them to go where they do not want to go.

    It sounds good, but in today's cultural climate what values are recognized as universal, and what principle is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all?
    That's the whole point of working at the grass roots, of consensus building. "Universal" principles do not magically appear from nothing. They come out of that consensus building process.

    The apostle Paul was a consensus builder. His epistles were not attempts to have the government force people to behave as Paul would have wanted. They were letters to groups of Christians encouraging them to set high standards for themselves, and to spread those standards by the examples that they set.

    For all of the political noise about abortion, most of the liberals that I know are anti-abortion. They are pro-choice, but that is not the same as pro-abortion. They think the final decision should be made by the woman and her physician, and not dictated by government. Some recent posts by Libby Anne have given the statistics which clearly show that the best way of decreasing abortion is to make birth control readily available. There could easily be a strong consensus to reduce abortion that way, if the religious right were not vehemently opposing it.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Well I certainly agree with you about the need to form a consensus, and I think that's what I was trying to get at in my blog post. I think that it's significant that there is very little in the New Testament about trying to change society, other than through making disciples.
    I think part of the problem now is that the country is so divided on some of these issues. Alabama is miles apart form Massachusetts in more ways than one!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Here's a question for you, Neil. I notice from your blog that you try to approach philosophy from a more evolutionary standpoint. The two main issues that concern the Religious Right are, of course, abortion and homosexuality. Let's assume, for the sake of the argument, that we are both atheists and accept the theory of evolution as an established fact. Could we not argue that evolution provides us with a biological "purpose" in the sense that whatever contributes to the survival of the species is beneficial? If that were the case, wouldn't we have to regard both abortion and homosexuality as regressive tendencies, harmful to the species? In fact, would this tend to take us in the direction of the some of the teleological or natural law arguments employed by Aristotle and Aquinas?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Could we not argue that evolution provides us with a biological "purpose" in the sense that whatever contributes to the survival of the species is beneficial?

    People mean different things by "purpose". But, sure, there's a sense in which survival could be said to be a purpose.

    If that were the case, wouldn't we have to regard both abortion and homosexuality as regressive tendencies, harmful to the species?

    No, not at all. If a family can support three children, but not four, then aborting a fourth pregnancy might actually aid the survival of that genetic line. A large use of abortion that resulting in a collapsing population size might be bad. But use of abortion (and, for that matter, infanticide) as a way of dealing with economic hardships can be to the benefit of the population.

    To be clear, I am not proposing either abortion or infanticide. I am just looking at the consequences from the perspective of evolution.

    On homosexuality, I'm not an expert. It is my understanding that homosexuals do bear children. That is to say, many of them are not exclusively homosexual.

    I am inclined to the view that children are not born homosexual. Likewise, my view is that they are not born heterosexual. They are just born sexual, and have to work out their own ways of dealing with sexual drives. But this working out starts very early in life, so is not a conscious choice.

    In fact, would this tend to take us in the direction of the some of the teleological or natural law arguments employed by Aristotle and Aquinas?

    I have not studied Aristotle or Aquinas, so only know a little about them. I am a skeptic on whether there are natural laws, but that's mostly an epistemic point about the nature of what it is that we call "laws."

    On purpose, yes I do think there is such a thing as natural purpose. I have attempted to elucidate that in a series of posts about purpose.

    ReplyDelete
  7. ...western civilization as a whole has experienced a seismic shift away from its Judeo-Christian moorings toward a more secular and materialistic orientation, and this raises the specter of an increasingly amoral and disordered society.

    Specters are a lot like ghosts which are a lot like pixies.
    (shrug)
    Judeo-Christian moorings, indeed.
    Check out Norway.

    But should Evangelicals allow the outside world to redefine their faith?

    Adapt or die. Religions do fail and end up on the ash-heap of history. It happens. Nothing magically protects any one denomination or religion from that fate. If a church or sect is not viable and society is not willing to give it members and money then it dies.

    Abortion and homosexuality are millstones around the neck of Christians everywhere. It make you all look bad.
    Bigoted is a good word for it.

    People nowadays just don't feel comfortable with hating their teenage son or daughter and throwing them out of the house because they are gay.
    When such stories are told in the community, mainstream society identifies the parents - not the gay children - as the real monsters.

    People just don't fear gay people like they used to.
    You can't blackmail them any more. You can't persecute them anymore. They've come out of the closet and people have noticed that they don't have horns growing out of their heads.

    Every time a Christian goes "Tut tut" over gay people, it's a win for the other side. Young people do hear you and they take note.
    And people like me are happy to say "See? Now there's your average Christian. That's what they are really like. Have a good hard look at the history books on how people just like them treated gay people back in the fifties."

    Then there's abortion. It's a dead loss too.
    Nothing alienates young women from religious types faster than the issue of abortion.
    People have sex. Yet Christians can't talk about it openly and honestly like sane adults.
    It's taboo.
    Contraception is great but it's not 100% perfect. Having access to safe and legal abortions are important to people who have sex. People really like sex. It's quite common for "good girls" and "good boys" to experiment sexually a few times at least before settling down with someone for the long term.
    Christians have sex too. Not just in the bliss of holy matrimony either.
    Everybody knows this. It's an open secret.
    Yet religious types are shackled to this public image of prudity and hypocrisy that they are unable to shake off.
    Meanwhile, the shifting moral zeigtgeist has moved on and your lot looks less and less attractive.









    Let's assume, for the sake of the argument, that we are both atheists and accept the theory of evolution as an established fact.

    You do remember that they are entirely separate issues, right?

    Could we not argue that evolution provides us with a biological "purpose" in the sense that whatever contributes to the survival of the species is beneficial? If that were the case, wouldn't we have to regard both abortion and homosexuality as regressive tendencies, harmful to the species?

    You could make that argument but...you would have to do two things.
    1) You'd have to go directly to the biological sciences and find out if that is really true and...
    2) You'd need to explain to people why they should magically stop being gay just because it's not contributing to the survival of the species.
    Good luck with that. You will need it.
    Don't expect any help from atheists or biologists. They will be the ones telling everybody that they have nothing to do with your arguments.



    ReplyDelete
  8. What got me thinking about the issue was an op-ed piece that Jerry Coyne wrote last year in USA Today entitled "As atheists know, You can be good without God" in which he tries to argue the case for a secular morality. Bearing in mind that he is an evolution, what struck particularly is a comment he made near the end of the piece: "Secular morality is what prevents ethically irrelevant matters -- what we eat, read or wear, when we work, or whom we have sex with --from being grouped with matters of genuine moral concern . . ." There are problems with his whole argument, but you would think that if you were going to build a moral system on a foundation of evolution, that whom we have sex with would be practically the only concern, as in eugenics, because evolution is all about, well, reproduction.
    Then, to elaborate further, if we evolved reproductive organs to perpetuate the species, and someone is, let's say anatomically a male but is sexually attracted to other males, or feels that he is psychologically female, then on a purely clinical basis wouldn't we conclude that he is abnormal or dysfunctional? Wouldn't we try to discover the cause of his sexual dysfunction and try to change it? How do we decide (on a purely secular or evolutionary basis) what is "normal"?

    ReplyDelete
  9. What got me thinking about the issue was an op-ed piece that Jerry Coyne wrote last year in USA Today entitled "As atheists know, You can be good without God" in which he tries to argue the case for a secular morality.

    A few points:

    Firstly, I do not agree with everything that Jerry Coyne says. For example, he thinks that we don't have free will, but I think that we do.

    Secondly, based on what you just wrote, he was arguing for secular morality, not for evolutionary morality. There are some people who argue for an evolutionary morality, but I am not one of them and I don't think Jerry Coyne is either.

    Thirdly, there is a discipline known as "evolutionary psychology." The EP people try to make the case that behavioral traits are the result of evolution. For myself, I think that EP is mostly crap. As I see it, evolution accounts for the hardware that we have (our physical bodies), but our behavior is due to choices that we make ourselves, though sometimes these are choices forced by the environment. In terms of morality, I presume that a capacity for morality evolved, but the particulars of what we consider moral result from human choices and not directly from evolution.

    A dog breeder decides on characteristics that he wants to breed, and selects for those. That's called "artificial selection." It is not at all the same as natural selection. It is not up to us to say what should or should not have evolved. We get to deal with whatever we have. The evidence suggests that it is normal for a significant proportion of the population to be homosexual.

    ReplyDelete