Recently Mommy PhD invited Harrogate to give his seventeen dollars and thirty-one cents on this NPR Story about Rev. Joel Hunter, who according to the article declined leadership of the Christian Coalition because the organization "wouldn't let him expand its agenda beyond opposing abortion and gay marriage." It is yet another case of these people earning in spades the kind of stereotypes to which Harrogate deftly alludes in the above Church Generator Sign. To say the least, Harrogate is deeply disappointed by Hunter's decision. Once again, it would seem, a prominent Christian voice of reason has allowed itself to be drowned out for all intents and porpoises.
Rather than welcoming the opportunity to use this high-profile position to reframe the mainstream discussion of what it means to be a Christian in America today, Hunter's move sends out the message that there's just no point in challenging the narrative that has been enschonced since the rise of Falwell and Robertson, and amplified recently by one of the most despicable human beings in politics today, "Dr." James Dobson. Thanks for the show of courage, Rev. Hunter. You're truly an agent of change.
Along these same lines, the controversy of Barak Obama's appearance before Rick Warren's Saddleback Congregation continues. Perhaps Harrogate's least favorite Bible-Thumping Panderer of them all, the malignant Kevin McCullough, recently added yet another piece of literary feces to this ongoing topic, spewing that if Evangelicals don't get in line and remember that all that matters is controlling women's bodies and hating gay people, then Barak Obama might become President in 2008, which would of course immediately plummet all Americans onto the fast-track to Hell:
GULLIBLE EVANGELICALS - The most reliable base of voters for the Republican Party since the days of President Reagan have been the social conservatives. Church-going born-again Christians who believe in God, the importance of His word, and the significance of living out their faith in an open and compassionate way every single day have been the backbone of the GOP. This past Friday Rick Warren, through the implied endorsement of allowing Obama to speak at one of the largest evangelical churches in America gave Obama the opportunity to split evangelicals who will be misled by Obama's words instead of opening their eyes to his actions. In my gentle admonition to Rick Warren over the past couple of weeks I reiterated time and again that it was this opportunity being extended to Obama that would be manipulated by both the press , and Obama himself to pose as a "person of faith." Warren's stubborn action of insisting upon having Obama speak at Saddleback Church in southern California has had that exact effect .
By slight contrast, Conservative Pundit Harry Jackson makes some interesting points about the vitriole with which his fellow Righties have been lampooning Warren for the last several weeks:
The so-called “controversy” over Pastor Rick Warren’s invitation for Senator Barack Obama to join Senator Brownback and others at a church sponsored summit on HIV/AIDS Conference concerns me. It seems to me that liberals are much more unified in their public views than conservatives these days. Once again our attempts at internal, conservative self-policing have become public news. Warren’s attempt to solve one of the world’s most troubling health problems should have been applauded by everyone.
Much better than McCullough, of course. And Harrogate agrees with Jackson totally that Warren has embarked on a noble thing, enlisting the power of his pulpit to make a difference in the AIDS crisis that continues to ravage many places across the Globe. Kudos, too, for Barak Obama in using his considerable voice and popularity to remind people that there is stuff in the New Testament about helping poor and oppresed peoples, about compassion, about humility. Some might argue there is even a little more of that kind of thing in the New Testament than there is excoriation of homosexuality or reproductive freedom.
One thing that bothers Harrogate very much about all of this, however, is the notion that whatever the Bible says, above and beyond all other modes of consideration, is what politicians ought to be implementing. Why is it that Barak Obama has to be our great big rising star now because he's found a way to push the Bible with liberal politics? It's just really fucking sad that there's now a de facto religious test for public officials in America. In truth Harrogate thinks Obama, though he does a lot of good and is certainly better than the crazy Rethuglicans, is highly, highly, highly overrated. 'Twould be sad for Democrats if Obama got the nomination in 08. What about somebody like Vilsak or Biden or Jennifer Granholm of Michigan or Bill Richardson of New Mexico? While Harrogate is sure all of these people are Christian he is pleased to report that they don't constantly remind us of that fact every time they get in front of a camera, and they don't defend their socially progressive ideas only by citing Jesus's own Progressive Rhetoric.
Despite Christianity's huge role in the life and history of this nation, no Founding Document ever said anything about cross-checking legislation, and even candidates for President, against the Bible. It sure would be nice if we could explain, and be effective doing it, the moral imperative of engaging things like AIDS and poverty without referencing the Bible at all.
Since, you know, we live in a Republic and not a Theocracy, it might even make sense if we could do such things.
But then, if Harrogate had a wish in one hand and a pile of James Dobson in the other, which would he have more of?
6 comments:
Ah, Harrogate! Thanks for the response. We just don't do enough of this anymore, you and I.
You said:
"Rather than welcoming the opportunity to use this high-profile position to reframe the mainstream discussion of what it means to be a Christian in America today, Hunter's move sends out the message that there's just no point in challenging the narrative..."
Your interpretation of the event takes the incident out of the context of the rapidly deteriorating influence of the Christian Coalition. His resignation does not, to me, represent a refusal to challenge but rather a bold, attention-getting move to say that the C.C. is not worth saving if it won't change. This could be the death knell for an organization that is no longer taken seriously by many of the people who so strongly supported it in the 70s and 80s. And Robertson, even to many conservative evangelicals, is looking just plain ol' crazy.
"One thing that bothers Harrogate very much about all of this, however, is the notion that whatever the Bible says, above and beyond all other modes of consideration, is what politicians ought to be implementing."
I understand where you're coming from, you must look at context. Obama has been wildly popular since his speech at the DNC, not for being a Christian but for being a good person with good ideas. The response right now, especially the commentators you cite, is all about his appearance at an evangelical mega-church, which is a bold thing to do, especially when talking about AIDS, something that has been largely ignored by that community until recent years. Of course he is going to appeal to faith and biblical principles because he is among Christians and (I assume) is a Christian himself.
I do not believe that this implies that everyone in the country should base their morals on the Bible. But for those who are among the faithful, there is no other way. The Bible is the way that they understand the world, and they (ideally) seek to implement the moral principles set out in the Bible and seek leaders who will do the same. I don't think that appealing to religious moral principles has to exclude non-religious moral principles.
"It sure would be nice if we could explain, and be effective doing it, the moral imperative of engaging things like AIDS and poverty without referencing the Bible at all."
I think that this happens all the time. But why is it so bad to invoke the Bible when so many people consider it THE moral code?
Sarah,
Thank you for the kind words and, as always, the plug on your own blog. Harrogate misses the regular bull sessions as well. Here you make several intriguing claims. For the sake of space I will, for the moment anyway, address only two of them.
Re your point that Hunter's action sends a message about the CC's "deteriorating influence": Perhaps, but that's a bit of an intepretive move on your part, you must admit. It seems more like Hunter took them seriously enough to place himself in a position to be their Leader, and only chose not to do it when he thought he wouldn't be able to get his agenda across.
But like our Mamas and Daddies always told us yung uns, how does he know if he doesn't try? And moreover, wouldn't the struggle itself, even if he ultimately failed, get media attention and subsequently raise public consciousness about the very issues he wants to stanhd for, anyway?
Second, your claim about Obama just doesn't ring true to Harrogate's computer-screen eye. To being with, the famous DNC Speech to which you allude depended for much its fireworks specifically on the Climactic moment where he declared something like "We worship an Awesome God in the Blue States."
Like John Edwards Obama could probably talk an Owl down out of a tree. And Harrogate agrees with many of this largely untested JUNIOR SENATOR'S policy ideas. But let's not fool ourselves, the big reason Obama's getting so much bootlicking right now is because he's formidably challenging for the Evangelical Vote. The links Harrogate provides in this post are but two of hundreds where critics and allies alike respond to his "outreach" to that block.
Harrogate thinks we've gone far enough with holding this mythic demographic up on some pedastal as if they have no shortcomings at all (read: homophobia among many other things), but instead represent what is right and moral and hardworking ad nauseum, and so all that is left is for different sets of politicosto convince these people "Hey, I'm one of you!"
Well, a politician sometimes needs to do more than pander. So far he's seen more of that from the young, charming, soothing Obama than anything else.
Aren't you glad I posted in the interest of space?
:-)
Sarah-
I will answer your last comment: "But why is it so bad to invoke the Bible when so many people consider it THE moral code?"
From your passage, I will infer that you are serious, even though "THE" is capitalized.
There is an important controversy over how we should incorporate religious discourse in public policy initiatives. Unfortunately, there is no clear line that tells us what is good or bad. I will try to develop one.
There are a few issues such as which religion we should incorporate (majority versus minority), how we should interpret the Bible (there are different interpretations based on different sects), what language we should use for interpretation (e.g. fundamentalists believe in the virgin birth while the Greek translation is "young woman"), and what issues we should apply the Bible to (the Bible does not discuss abortion, it does not discuss AIDS, and Jesus does not discuss homosexuality).
The biggest question though is how do we incorporate a particular religious discourse since it relies on arguments from authority, which limits consensus. By incorporating religious themes in public debates, politicians can cut off debate and the poltical process. As a result, our political process suffers. We no longer seek to gain on consensus on issues; we only seek to discuss issues in vague absolute terms and demonize our enemies-- those that do not possess the same religious views.
I would conclude that religious discourse crosses the line when it impedes the political process.
I agree that religious discourse can impede the political process, but I don't think that it has to be that way. I believe that the kinds of activism and the kinds of political discussions that are developing among Christians--specifically among evangelicals--are good for the political process because differences in interpretation and understanding of the Bible are coming up for more open discussion within congregations. Since the development of the "Moral Majority," evangelicals have appears to be a uniform group with the same beliefs with no room for discussion. But that is breaking down now, and people inside the religion are beginning to vocally question and reinterpret positions that have been traditionally associated with those churches. Yes, there are still leaders offering their interpretations to their congregations, but the multiplicity of views that are coming from these leaders encourage members of the congregations to think and question and discuss, breaking down the kind of singular authoritative political stance that evangelicals have appeared to hold. Tolerance, yes, even for homosexuals, is increasing, and willingness to follow a political party blindly based on one issue is decreasing.
Religion is political. Realistically, the two cannot be separated. So I still see it as good news when "liberal" politicians are welcomed into "conservative" churches, when "conservative" religious people are actively involved in "liberal" pursuits--it helps to break down the associations of Christian and Republican or conservative and moral so that people who are religious and feel that they are held responsible by God to make decisions based on what they understand to be morally sound--their morals, of course, grounded in their religion--are not lumped together under broad political categories that do not represent anything inherent in the religious beliefs of evagelical Christianity.
Perhaps I'm looking through rose-colored glasses, but I still believe that good things are happening here.
Excellent discussion all the way around. Harrogate finds himself agreeing with Sarah, solon, and (but of course) himself--all at the same time.
Indeed, Moreover, Furthermore, Yet, After All, But and At the same time: Harrogate for a moment almost felt inspired to develop a new post using Church Sign Generator, unironically using one of his favorite passages from the New Testament.
Almost. The day of unirony is still a ways off.
Post a Comment