Thank you for your frank discussion. I am a culturally left-leaning evangelical Christian that has come to view the Religious Right as a giant monolith. This post does a good job of shedding the light on the difference. Thanks.
I also worry about being a "fool" when Falwell or Dobson declare non-sexual cartoons to be homosexual and I'm glad to see that those on the Right don't appreciate it much either.
Um, this is a nit, but Dobson never said Spongebob was gay. He just expressed resentment at Good Mister Squarepants being co-opted to promote what he saw as a gay propoganda video in elementary schools. (Not taking any positions here, just pointing out what acutally happened.)
Falwell? No excuse for HIM! ;->
Very insightful and interesting essay. I also consider myself to be a "conservative" but recognize that forcing moral behavior does not a Christian nation make. In fact, I think this idea "reclaiming America" has done more harm than good and has confused the issue of what kingdom we *really* belong to. But that's another post, right? 
That said, I see no problem with declaring that things like abortion and homosexuality are wrong - even from the pulpit. And I have no problem with trying to pass laws to protect the defenseless. Just so long we don't become myopic and forget that there are many other issues that we as Christians should be concerned about. And so long as we don't look at everything as a problem that can be solved through politics.
Thank you for this.
I was in Atlanta in '98 during the Operation Rescue protests and the Olympic Park bombing. It was a sort of scary time; you just got the sense that some folks were getting progressively more and more off the deep end. (Though I have problems with Operation Rescue, I should say I don't blame them for Eric Rudolph's actions.)
Thanks for your essay.
I think you underestimate the influence of Dominionist views.
I'll post more on the Mainstream Baptist weblog.
thank you, thank you, thank you so much...
this changes my whole view of the 'christian right'... tho not a christian in any traditional sense myself, a dialog such as this has created within me a 'Paulist' experience, if you will...
Blessed Be
Good post. I was just reading something at the internet monk talking about his affiliation to no major team and it rang true with what you're saying. I must say, your insight on years of preaching morals over the gospel affecting this mindset is quite the eye-opener. I don't know of any people who were saved by the sermon on the mount--but I know quite a few who were saved by hearing about Christ on the Cross, praise the Lord.
Thanks for sharing your view from within evangelical Christianity, both from within the "Religious Right" and a Christian position somewhat removed.
I guess my fear of religion and government mixing comes from religious history, in which such marriages end in profound scandal at best, or rivers of blood at worst.
What an excellent, honest and thought-provoking post! I intend to include some of your comments as I continue my series tracking Time's 25 Most Influential Evangelicals (e-mail me if you have a problem with this). I have learned a lot about faith from Faithful Conservatives--and hope we can continue this conversation over the next months.
-FP
I have linked your post to my site.
Thank you for this post. I used to be where you were ideologically, then I swung the other way, but now I'm even in a different, third place. My friends who are more theologically-minded than I would call it "Radical Orthodoxy."
"I welcome comments and dialog from my fellow believers on the left."
I hope you don't mind a comment from a "non-believer" on the left. Thank you for such a candid post (it needn't be any "sexier" as there's nothing better than heartfelt honesty). I do have some very good friends who have similar views to yours but, as a member of a minority religion & in today's political environment, it's always reassuring to hear similar views from a Conservative Christian I don't know personally.
I am also glad that you did not make your comments "sexier." It would only harm the credibility of your observations.
As a non-Christian, and someone who is socially left and fiscally right, the Christian Right has a supremacist flavor to its agenda, and it is frightening to someone who is both a woman and from a minority religion.
In politics, appearance is as valuable and sometimes more influential than substance. The image that is presented to me {and *my kind} is scary. In addition to their political and social power, these people carry the weight of a kind of collective emotional baggage, the negative image of Christians as inquisitors. They appear to me, to be poised to take that position as "oppressors for Christ," even if the words that they speak or print might say something completely different. This is what their posturing tells me.
And all Christians are paying for the image they present to the world of Christ, and Christianity. If you wonder where the hostili
I found your post very insightful. What I’d like to comment on is your statement: ‘I realized that politics could not heal this world of evil. As a result, I swore off politics completely’.
I’m writing from South Africa. Throughout the 1980s local right-wing conservative churches were predominantly white. Most right-wing Christians in South Africa supported apartheid – well most white South Africans supported apartheid. The government claimed to be Christian. The white Dutch Reformed Church claimed there was biblical justification for apartheid. People in demographically white churches (remember that because of the then Group Areas Act in South African law, black people could not attend white churches even if they had wanted to do so) were not heartless or unmoved by the suffering of black people around them living in poverty and imprisoned without trial. They prayed for them. There were soup kitchens. Many individuals personally tried to help the families of their domestic workers.
To finish the comment
But there was no understanding that unless the inhumane laws changed, people would keep going to prison even though their only crime was to have a black skin. Under apartheid laws, there was no freedom of movement between black and white areas.In terms of the law black and white people could not marry, let alone have sex. Black people not carrying ID documents on them in public places would be arrested and fined or imprisoned. Black people by law could not eat or shop or be served in the same places as whites. Black people were not allowed by law to vote. And black schoolchildren could not attend white government-subsidised schools – when the government tried to pass a law that blacks could only study in Afrikaans black children from Soweto themselves marched in desperation unarmed against the South African armed forces and the death of Hector Peterson made world headlines.
If it were not for political protest, do you believe South Africa would ever have cha
Sorry – to finish the comment
But there was no understanding that unless the inhumane laws changed, people would keep going to prison even though their only crime was to have a black skin. Under apartheid laws, there was no freedom of movement between black and white areas.In terms of the law black and white people could not marry, let alone have sex. Black people not carrying ID documents on them in public places would be arrested and fined or imprisoned. Black people by law could not eat or shop or be served in the same places as whites. Black people were not allowed by law to vote. And black schoolchildren could not attend white government-subsidised schools – when the government tried to pass a law that blacks could only study in Afrikaans black children from Soweto themselves marched in desperation unarmed against the South African armed forces and the death of Hector Peterson made world headlines.
If it were not for political protest, do you believe South Africa would ever
Finishing comment (apologies)
If it were not for political protest, do you believe South Africa would ever have changed? I cannot see how the hearts and minds of white South African, Christians would have changed without the political struggle against an unjust government and unjust laws. Many black and white South African Christians died in that struggle. When you look at South Africa today, there are still many whites with hardened hearts and minds who long for the ‘good old days’, but racial discrimination is now forbidden by law and there is a new multiracial generation growing up together.
Because of this history and my own involvement as a young person, I believe that not participating in broader politics is a luxury that very few of us in the world can afford to indulge in. It is possible that it may not be possible for American Christians to indulge this luxury for much longer. Political involvement alone doesn’t bring about deep-seated changes – and I’d agree with you t
Thanks for your input Mary. I agree with you that we cannot abandon politics and the world. I felt that way years ago but do not know. Regarding your analogy of apartheid and abortion, the problem I have with Operation Rescue isn't the goal but the methods.
Goal and methods are hard to separate when the "belief" is absolute. I think this is one of the danger words and critical issues many of us have with the Christian Right, or indeed any activist fundamentalist religious group. Belief is no longer a strong individual opinion, it's an enforcable given, an axiom of rightness, that serves as a passport to the Saved group. And psychology has made it clear what happens to those with such group identification: Others are regarded with either condescension or hostility as slightly (or more) sub-human. It's an archaic tribal response that is very hard to stifle, and you don't actually see many trying to. Though it's covered fairly well in casual contact, it doesn't take much to penetrate the veneer of "tolerance".
In addition, the marriage of Christian and Right is a kind of shotgun miscegenation. Libertarian-style morals and philosophy have about as much miscability with Christ's teaching as oil does with water. They have
to be whipped into a furious froth to hold together even briefly as an emulsion. Left to their own devices, away from the Power Motive, they separate out quite cleanly.
So be very careful with Christian politics. A lot of it on the ground is actually an inimicable alien intrusion.
Your post is remarkable, thoughtful, and open-minded. Thank you.
But just one comment: throughout your post, you continue to use the word Christian in a way that suggests the exclusion of Catholic, Orthodox and many "mainstream" Protestants. I happen to be a Catholic, and have sadly spent too much of my life defending my right to call myself Christian to fundamentalist Protestants who insist that we are not. I trust that you do not share this view, but some clarification would be reassuring. Certainly being a Christian does not mean taking away from others the right to identify themselves as well as Christian!
"I am opposed to efforts to ban smoking."
I don't think this is a Christian Right platform. I believe is a leftist agenda item, who also are for gun control.
On welfare of animals, you didn't say much about it. While I think animals should be protected, I wouldn't go quite as far as PETA. This issue doesn't rank on my agenda. Abortion is a bigger concern, which I'm opposed.
I believe prayer in school should be allowed rather than opposed. It would appear all school prayer is banned, including student lead prayer due to a fundamental ignorance and arrogance against freedom of religion AND speech.
I'm for the FMA. Is it the best legislation? Maybe not. However, judicial activism must stop. Give democracy a chance.
"I personally feel that this is a theological problem caused by years of preaching moralism as opposed to the Gospel."
This is ridiculous. The morals discussion is about society and politics. Jesus in the Gospels is the religious discussion. If you h
"I personally feel that this is a theological problem caused by years of preaching moralism as opposed to the Gospel."
This is ridiculous. The morals discussion is about society and politics. Jesus is the religion itself. If you hear more about morals, people are not getting good religious instruction. Morals should be discussed with regard to the raising of children. Adult require it too to "rebuke" and "instruct".
Don't forget. When Jesus was sacrificed, it was due to political and religious purposes. Who was the Roman governor who presided over the whole incident?
"As far as I can remember, our pastor has rarely mentioned abortion, never talks about homosexuality, and refrains from talking politics from the pulpit."
I think this is a mistake. Religion should not be isolated from the world. Politics can be discussed in some form to teach and inform.
Sorry I have not been able to respond to every comment here. I did want to address one concern that wjd had regarding my use of the term "Christian" and whether I am excluding Catholics, Orthodox, or mainline Protestants. By no means was that my intention. I'm sure that there are some who believe that, but I believe that is a shrinking minority. Christianity is pretty basic: do you believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God, that he truly died and resurrected from the dead for your sins, and the Jesus is the only way to know God. That's it.
Sure, there are other disagreements among various denominations. But we often say at our church, "Major on the majors and minor on the minors".
I hope this is clear enough.
Thanks for your insightful comments. I agree with you completely. Not all conservatives are bigots. Not all Catholics are liberal. Christ comes before all for any Christian. Unfortunately, I believe that some Religious Right are coming to the realization to late that they were used by the Bush campaign. The country will be many years recovering, I fear.
Dignan,
Thanks for visiting my blog and for the invite here.
I, as you probably guessed, am not a religious person but I have nothing but respect for religion or religious people. My problem is with the government doing what the family, the church and the religious community should be doing. Abortions, for example: Abortions are not good things and they do eliminate a potential life, but NO ONE should have the right to tell a woman that she cannot, under penalty of law, do whatever she wants with her own body or with a product of her reproductive system. That potential life is HERS, not mine or yours or Justice Scalia's. Ditto for Gay relationships and Gay marriage; it's untraditional and, in a biological sense, unnatural but it's also none of our business as long as it doesn't deny us our rights.
There are many different opinions on and descriptions of 'good' and 'bad' behavior; when we have the Supreme Court and/or the Legislature deciding which behavior is good and
There are many different opinions on and descriptions of good and bad behavior; but when we have the Supreme Court and/or the Legislature deciding which behavior is good and which is bad, which behavior is legal and which is illegal, we're all in trouble. (I'm not, of course, talking about behavior that is non-consensual.)
I was following the rise of Operation Rescue on local Christian radio stations during the 1980s, and was active in the pro-life movement through several organizations.
I observed that groups such as Operation Rescue would get locked into a particular course of action and develop a "tunnel vision" that their way was the ONLY way.
With most of these groups, the One True Way was "We have to elect a Republican President who'll appoint a Supreme Court who'll overturn Roe v Wade". American Life League probably had the worst tunnel vision along these lines; during the Bork hearings, they actually phoned me up and threatened me with God's Wrath if I didn't give $$$ to get Bork confirmed.
With Operation Rescue, it was getting busted and jailed for sit-ins at abortion joints; we got the distinct impression that to OR, "If you don't join our Rescues and go to jail with us, You're Not Really a Christian."
I have a question: you say your pastor doesn't preach about homosexuality. What if a gay couple wanted to join your "Young Couples" ministry group? Or, what if someone wanted to put an announcement in the church bulletin for volunteer positions at Planned Parenthood? Would he allow that?
I'm asking these questions seriously to try and understand your church, not just for an argument.
Thanks!
As someone who considers himself part of "The Religious Right", I find it remarkable what people think is under that umbrella. You offer hints of this in your post, but suffice to say we're much smaller than the paranoid believe, larger than the powerful would hope, tamer than our enemies portray us, and somewhat more militant than many of us would like. I'm Catholic, I think fundamentalist televangelists like Robertson and Falwell could benefit from a little therapy, and my main concern politically is the defense of the Republic under the Constitution through the rule of law. The "Religious Right" this post describes is clearly not the same organization I'm talking about. Therein lies the problem: there is no single test for what fits the title, so what you think it means depends on who you are and where your perspective lies.
Let me just chime in and answer Steven, since I'm a member of the same church as Dignan. Our church belongs to a theologically conservative denomination. (But culturally embracing I should add -- we're in the Reformed tradition.) As such, the positions on those issues seem to be an a priori assumption for most, since they are the stated positions of the denomination.
But because these messages are so divisive in our culture, and because the point of the homily is to both remind us forgetful believers of the Gospel while drawing seekers to it, our pastor has seen fit to largely avoid these messages in the sermon.
People changing their positions on them is a matter of changed hearts, and only the Gospel changes hearts. You don't get morality without having the Gospel first. In my experience, preaching that majors on morality is a dead end and usually leads to legalism and self-congratulation.
I'm curious about the disposition of the case when you were a HS senior... did you win?
When you were threatened with expulsion for "possession of Christian material" at school I certainly don't think it's a mistake for Jay and the ACLJ to fight that kind of malicious oppression.... That was bigotry, pure and simple, and although it is true that changing hearts is better than changing law, we can't accept or ignore when our rights are violated.
Dignan,
I come out of this same world. I lived in the same environment and breathed in the same air as you as a child, through high school, and beyond. I watched the 700 Club, waited for the mailings from CASE/ACLJ, thought myself a martyr by wearing my Christian t-shirts to school, etc.
And you're right. The foot-soldiers of the Christian Right are often unfairly caricatured by their critics. Most are caring people and truly care about their communities.
But I think you do them and us a disservice by this warm-light portrayal. In mixed company there may well be embarassment over Falwell, et.al. But in a one-minded group--among friends, at church, on the internet, etc.--the rhetoric of fear and the fight against the 'other' finds resonance. Why is that?
Dignan,
Does "I swore off politics completely" extend to not voting? I agree that thinking that laws are going to make a nation "moral" is absurd, but at the same time, consider this about politics:
Laws simply express the way we think about right and wrong. We think it's wrong to rob a bank so we make laws in an attempt to minimize robberies and (at least theoretically) help the offender realize their mistake. The process by which we make those laws is politics. As a Christian, you must have strong opinions on many moral issues. Shall we have laws that actually encourage homosexual behavior and abortion? This is precisely what you will get if Christians completely abandon the political process. Do you really want 14-year old's getting abortions without their parent's knowledge on the advice of a school "counselor"? Are we more "spiritual" if we do not involve ourselves in such things?
With respect and Christian love I submit that true spirituality necessarily involve
Short continuation:
With respect and Christian love I submit that true spirituality necessarily involves us in the lives of our neighbors, and in our culture this means that we cannot ignore the political process.
F.L.
This was great! Thanks. I have the feeling you've read "Blinded by Might" by Cal Thomas and Ed Dobson who were early partners with Falwell in forming the Moral Majority. If not, I recommend it highly as both authors finally "saw the light" after about 25 years. I saw these problems when the religious right started in the '70's and wondered if I was a freak and why others didn't see it too. And, I was a conservative all my life BUT a Goldwater conservative and that is a BIG difference from the neocons we see today.
I will be linking with this post in a few days as I want to take this up in my blog again. I rant and rave about this very thing now and then at my blog..LOL.
Dignan:
Like you, I come from a conservative Christian background, though not fundamentalist. Unlike you, I left the reservation completely, and consider myself lucky and blessed to be back in the fold.
I went to college in the early seventies, so I am a child of the sixties in a lot of ways. What that meant was supporting Gene McCarthy, McGovern, hating Nixon and the military, opposing the Vietnam War; sex, drugs, rock n roll, the whole deal. Of course, going to a small Christian college our protests were pale imitations of the kinds of things going on at Berkeley, etc. Almost laughable, really.
The point is that I was a flaming knee-jerk liberal. I never supported Reagan, thought he was stupid. I thought Jerry Falwell was arrogant and condescending, and thought Robertson was worse.
Along the way I became a Christian and was surprised and, frankly, proud whenever I heard public figures speak out about their faith. It seems like not that long ago, that it was unusual for public figures to speak candidly about their faith.
Abortion pushed me in the direction of conservatism. We were childless and in the process of adopting and the words "unwanted pregnancy" were like a slap in the face. As an adoptive parent I would like to clarify that there is no such thing as an unwanted pregnancy. Abortion is an outrage, and while Operation Rescue may have become ridiculous, I was encouraged by people willing to be put in jail to draw attention to the abortion "industry."
One other point. Among many other reasons for moving towards conservatism and eventually Republicans, I realized that much of the liberal and "Democrat" platform is based on envy of the rich. Democrats blather on and on about "tax cuts for the rich" with no apparent shame for invoking the green monster of envy. Unfortunately, envy has become one of the acceptable deadly sins even among Christians for whom I have great respect.
Oh. and another point. As a Christian, I realized I had more in common, unfortunately, with Robertson and Falwell than with Ralph Neas, Patricia Ireland, Mick Jagger and, unfortunately, John Kerry.
jd reminds me of the unfortunate Evangelical notion that the world ought to be free of bad things -- and when bad things occur it is reason to get angry. jd's cynicism toward other people that he apparently disagrees with reminds me of why I happily left the church and am at perfect peace following my own path with God.
Dear Dignan,
I am a New Yorker who grew up around different places, cultures and religions, and I try to not see any of them as exclusive. I came by to thank you for the article about the Christian Right and ask a question.
At this point, we on this side of the Hudson River are unfortunately very angry and feel our values are being misrepresented and ignored in the political process. Part of the anger comes from stereotypes about Christians, because we don't see many evangelicals here. So, thank you.
About abortion, I want to sincerely have answers about what is morality and what is really compassion.
My points: my grandma was poor and terminated four pregnancies with a wirehanger;
most crack-addicted children in foster care are condemned to a miserable short and violent life. I just wish they did not have to go through it.
Many of my friends and fellow New Yorkers can't help thinking that legalized abortion is compassion. The only way it can be abolished is through birth control and sex-ed, and most in the Christian Right seem to oppose that.
Now, how a compassionate Christian like yourself and your friends see this difficult issue? Thank you again.
Dignan,
I came across your site and have decided to give it a read. While I hate to point out errors in someone's post, your post is describing a timeline and this error disrupted my reading immersion.
In Operation Rescue, first sentence, you mention the year 1998. Shouldn't it be 1988?
Sorry again for being a nitpicker.
One more thing:
Quote--
I personally feel that this is a theological problem caused by years of preaching moralism as opposed to the Gospel. My life is a perfect example. I used to think that I had to do the right things (don't drink, don't smoke, don't have premarital sex, go to church every Sunday, etc) in order to have God's approval. I have realized over time that this view is the antithesis of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and that nothing I ever do will cause God to love me any more than He already does.
-- End Quote
Although we call it different names, we believe the same thing. I don't call myself a Christian because most don't follow his teachings, but those of his disciples, apostles, popes, etc. If more people read and followed the Sermon on the Mount/Beauttitudes (spelling?), we all would be better off. (except the pluck your eye out and cut off your arm thing Good luck running against McKinney.
Regards,
Child God
Commenting by HaloScan
