Amy Sullivan: Upsetting the Apple Cart
I heard a thought-provoking commentary on "All Things Considered" last night by a woman named Caroline Langston. She talked about the fact that over the past decade or so her political views have changed, but not her religious views--and wondered whether that was acceptable to her newfound peers on the liberal end of the political spectrum.One of the problems with the oft-used term "religious left" is that it is sometimes taken to connote people who are theologically liberal in addition to politically liberal. Those of us who are conservative (I prefer the term "orthodox") theologically but liberal politically sometimes pose problems when our religiously-informed political beliefs don't always fall neatly into the traditional liberal categories. Some of you out there may relate to Caroline, who warns her new friends:
"I'm still pro life, not because I am a tool of the patriarchy as some girl once accused me, but because it seems consistent with others who at risk, vulnerable and unwanted. I have grave concerns about stem cell research, not because I want to shove my religion on others but because I've learned to be suspicious of people who claim that philosophical objections are unimportant. And my disenchantment with the current conservative movement rests on two concepts that the great cannon of Western literature gave me - hubris and sin."
The new political and religious landscape that we'll be exploring on this blog is more complicated than the monolithic one that has been assumed in the past, during the time of what Jim Wallis refers to as the Religious Right's monologue. It will require some tough thinking by people on all sides who may have to rework ideas about who their allies are. As Caroline asks at the end of her commentary: "Is there a place for me at the table, exactly as I am?"
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
I certainly hope there is room for folks like Caroline Langston at the table. I was raised in a family that would fit very well into the category of orthodox theologically and progressive politically. For example, my Dad believes strongly in the Resurrection because of his life's work among alcoholics and drug addicts -- he believes he has witnessed the physical power of God's transforming love among his clients. Yet my Dad also believes that the government has a responsibility to care for the poor, provide healthcare and education.>
Posted by: Will | September 27, 2006 5:56 PM
I heard this commentary as well, and nearly wept with joy to hear my own thoughts so articulately expressed. As one who has struggled to extricate myself from the pigeonhole of the "liberal Democrat" label, it is so, so encouraging to see in this blog, and hear in other places, the beginnings of sincere dialogue about VALUES. Not just what "we" consider to be values, nor what "they" consider to be, but what all of us collectively determine Jesus insists we consider to be. If there is not room at the table for those whose deepest beliefs do not fit neatly into prefab political categories, then it is well past time to set up a new table. My guess is that it will be the best table in the house!
Jeannine>
Posted by: Jeannine Grady | September 27, 2006 6:20 PM
I enjoyed this article. It is often said that the Christian political right only cares about two issues: abortion and gay marriage. And yet, whenever I have asked my liberal-leaning friends if they could ever support a politician who would work to ban abortion, the answer is an emphatic "no". The pendulum swings both ways.
What if there were a presidential nominee who would fight for the rights of the unborn to be protected from legal abortions, and supported a constitutional amendment forbidding gay marriage, but who advocated "progressive" stances on healthcare, welfare, the environment, etc? Would that nominee be successful? Would you support him or her?>
Posted by: kevin s. | September 27, 2006 7:03 PM
To answer Kevin S.
I could only support a presidential nominee who could tell me the difference between a married couple celebrating the 15th wedding anniversary and a gay couple celebrating 15 years of living and loving each other.
For me a canidate who doesn't understand that there is no difference between those circumstances doesn't deserve my vote. Call it a litmis test if you want to, but the issue of gay marriage does not require a constitutional amendment it requires a better understanding of the human being you are effecting and ther person you are not effecting. Gay marriage only effects a non-gay person if they let it.
As far as abortion is concerned, I could vote for a canidate who wanted to outlaw the practice if and only if there were clear understanding of the consequences and a remedy for them.
Both of these "sins" are personel "sins" that do not require government intervention. Would I like to see less abortions Absolutly!! Would I want to see more suicides and deaths caused by illegal abortions, Absolutly NOT!>
Posted by: Bill Baltrus | September 27, 2006 7:58 PM
Re: Jeannine's comment
I want to party at the same table for the same reasons! I have followed Jesus for almost 41 years. My commitment to Him and the truth of the Bible has only increased and solidified over the past four decades. However, my philosophical and political understandings have bounced all over the place.
In the past ten years I have been driven by, "What would Jesus do?" Jesus protects all people-unborn and otherwise. He allows fallen people the opportunity for redemption while spending their lives in prison rather than killing them. He loves all people-gay, straight and others-and proved it by placing Himself in the untenable position of self-sacrifice for them. Jesus doesn't send our best and brightest into war for a self-serving political agenda. Jesus does what's best for all-not just for those who have power and money.
As I discovered Jesus in this way I realized that we all miss the point, regardless of political labels. Jesus is neither Republican nor Democrat nor socialist nor facsist nor free-market nor neocon nor militarist nor pacifist. He is Truth. He is God. He is the Redeemer. And He treasures every human being who has ever drawn a breath ... even many who didn't get that opportunity.
Jeannine, we're gonna party at that table! Bring it on!>
Posted by: Ron Rogers | September 27, 2006 8:41 PM
So much for the '2-way pendulum', eh kevin s.?
First you remind us that: "It is often said that the Christian political right only cares about two issues: abortion and gay marriage.", and then you pose a "question" about whether we would "ever support a politician who would work to ban abortion". Seems to me that the pendulum is stuck.
You then ask, AGAIN, "What if there were a presidential nominee who would fight for the rights of the unborn to be protected from legal abortions, and supported a constitutional amendment forbidding gay marriage" and then go on to talk about other "progressive" stances on healthcare, welfare, the environment, etc?". If you insist on inserting the first 2 criteria, the pendulum is yet again, stuck on your side.
I guess we're right after all that "the Christian political right only cares about two issues: abortion and gay marriage" except there's nothing "christian" about it.>
Posted by: curiouser and curiouser... | September 27, 2006 8:47 PM
Ron:
I forgot to mention that this table should be ruled by humility and gracious (if sometimes irreverent and boisterous) behavior. There would be room for any who wish to sit there, but many would clearly choose not to. Pity.>
Posted by: Jeannine Grady | September 27, 2006 9:23 PM
C & C,
You missed the point entirely. I said that the so-called "religious right" has been accused of caring about two issue above all others. I then asked if people on this board could support a candidate who took the oppositie position on those two issues, but held progressive stances on the remainder. The point is that it seems to me that the left weighs these issues with just as much importance as does the right (there are a number of possible reasons for this).
If Bill's response is any indication, the pendelum does indeed swing both ways.>
Posted by: kevin s. | September 27, 2006 9:27 PM
kevin,
I'm a liberal who'd be willing to make some compromises on the issues you're concerned about in order to get more progressive policies on healthcare, education, the environment and economic justice. Especailly abortion, as I do have respect for the "pro-life" view on this matter (although I feel pro-liferers are rarely consistently pro-life). I don't agree with it (the fetus is not the same as a baby, and relative frequency of miscarriages suggests nature/God agrees with me), but I respect it. I have less respect for gay marriage as a major issue one way or the other. I certainly don't want it in the constitution.
So the answer is I'd be willing to vote for somebody who promised to reduce abortion access and veto gay marriage legislation, but not somebody who would make abortion totally illegal or would attempt to ammend the constitution for or against gay marriage.>
Posted by: paggle | September 27, 2006 9:39 PM
that should read "veto pro-gay marriage legislation"
i.e. I don't care if marriage excludes homosexuals, just leave it out of the constitution.>
Posted by: paggle | September 27, 2006 9:42 PM
Paggle,
So there are litmus tests on this issue for you as well, yes? What limitations on abortion would be allowable?>
Posted by: kevin s. | September 27, 2006 10:26 PM
Test>
Posted by: Test | September 27, 2006 10:36 PM
kevin,
Perhaps I did miss the point, but maybe it's because what you say you said isn't what you said...
From your 3:32pm post:
"I said that the so-called "religious right" has been accused of caring about two issue above all others. I then asked if people on this board could support a candidate who took the OPPOSITE [emphasis mine] position on those two issues"
Sorry, but your original post at 1:08pm said:
"What if there were a presidential nominee who would fight for the rights of the unborn to be protected from legal abortions, and supported a constitutional amendment forbidding gay marriage"
That is NOT " the OPPOSITE position of the religious right; it is the EXACT position of the religious right. The EXACT same 2 issues that are always at the heart of the right's position. Always.
Then you tagged on what appeared to be an afterthought: "but held progressive stances on the remainder."
And 'remainders' is what it seems to be. They are hardly ever central to the religious right. Certainly isn't on the websites of FotF, AFA, etc. (Yes, these issues are mentioned, but they are not THE plank of the platform, more like toothpicks.
"The point is that it seems to me that the left weighs these issues (gay marriage and abortion) with just as much importance as does the right."
I conjecture that that is because the right constantly makes them the issue and we readily, happily rebut their nonsense.
Howzabout this: YOU drop it as an issue, and we'll do the same.
Better yet, on the gay marriage issue at least, howzabout THIS: treat us equally before the law, and the 'issue' will simply disappear. Equality, after all, has only, ever and always been our goal.>
Posted by: curiouser and curiouser... | September 27, 2006 10:36 PM
Amy Sullivan:
One of the problems with the oft-used term "religious left" is that it is sometimes taken to connote people who are theologically liberal in addition to politically liberal. Those of us who are conservative (I prefer the term "orthodox") theologically but liberal politically sometimes pose problems when our religiously-informed political beliefs don't always fall neatly into the traditional liberal categories.
I count myself in this camp, but I have my doubts about Wallis, given his theological dancing on the issue of homosexuality.
Kevin:
What if there were a presidential nominee who would fight for the rights of the unborn to be protected from legal abortions, and supported a constitutional amendment forbidding gay marriage, but who advocated "progressive" stances on healthcare, welfare, the environment, etc? Would that nominee be successful? Would you support him or her?
I think U.S. Representative Tony Hall of Ohio would fit this description. Other examples that come to mind include former Senator Mark Hatfield of Oregon and the late Governor Bob Casey of Pennsylvannia.
Bill:
Gay marriage only effects a non-gay person if they let it.
Evidence from Europe suggests otherwise:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/660zypwj.asp
">http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/126qodro.asp>
Posted by: HuckFinn | September 27, 2006 11:06 PM
Was anyone else unclear on what I meant?
C&C said this:
"Howzabout this: YOU drop it as an issue, and we'll do the same."
If we both drop the issue, gay marriage remains illegal. What I suspect you meant is "just give us our way, and we'll drop it." Unless I misread you.>
Posted by: kevin s. | September 27, 2006 11:12 PM
I find it amusing that the issues political pundits brought to the forefront as wedge issues have indeed, it appears, become wedge issues. In other words, their methodology worked.
There are issues in the U.S. much bigger than gay marriage. Low wages, children in need of medical care, daycare for single parents; the list goes on. The debate in this blog shows how well politicians control the debate not only among the general public, but among believers.
Maybe the church should continue to debate abortion, but make a promise to itself to stay out of the homosexuality debate until the health and welfare of children is first resolved. Do this partly to deal with these more pressing issues, and secondly to show the political operators that we will not let them rather than the body of Christ set the debate.>
Posted by: rowland | September 27, 2006 11:59 PM
Gay marriage is going to happen and there is nothing that any conservative right wing pastor can do about it.
p>
Posted by: Payshun | September 28, 2006 12:20 AM
If religious beliefs of a majority of voters in the US should determine requirements of law here, then shouldn't it be allowable for stoning of women caught in adultery to become law in Iraq, assuming a majority of voters would support it, there? Or amputation of hands for persons convicted of theft?
Isn't it better to provide for the rights of minorities, in constitutions everywhere? And to require substantial majorities to change a constitution?
And what about law that allows execution of a believer who blasphemes, as is the case in those countries which adopt that part of sharia as law?
In the introduction to "God has Ninety-nine Names", Judith Miller describes the exultation on the part of observers at the execution of a person convicted of blasphemy in Khartoum, about the mid-1990's.
Isn't there great value to the first amendment to the US constitution?
I think we all should be respectful of religions other than our own, but is it right to act as though beliefs should be accepted as law, whatever the beliefs and their consequences on non-believers (or, believers)?
I surely intend no insult to anyone, of any religion. But I think religious beliefs should not be the basis for law, anywhere, considering the possible consequences to rights that citizens should have, in any country.>
Posted by: Michael Hayes | September 28, 2006 1:16 AM
I agree w/ you Michael.
p>
Posted by: Payshun | September 28, 2006 5:23 AM
Michael,
So you disagree with Jim Wallis? At a certain point, we have to make ethical and moral decisions. Utilitarianism cannot function as a guidepost for civilized society. Well, maybe it can, but I would challenge you to explain how that would work, and how it wouldn't most closely resemble libertarianism, of all the prevailing ideologies.>
Posted by: kevin s. | September 28, 2006 5:33 AM
"Those of us who are conservative (I prefer the term "orthodox") theologically but liberal politically sometimes pose problems when our religiously-informed political beliefs don't always fall neatly into the traditional liberal categories."
Are we just supposed to take it for granted that this blog, those who contribute to it, and Sojourners in general is "orthodox"? I keep searching in vain for an outline of what Sojourners believes in terms of their doctrinal non-negotiables. From what I have seen so far Beliefnet can hardly be called "orhodox" in any historical or biblical sense. What do you guys believe anyway that is not a social justice issue? There is more to life than just social justice and the belief in social justice grows out of a biblical orthodoxy. As a theological conservative/social liberal it is very discouraging to be reading the same old cries about social Christian concerns not equally strong in the cries of soul related Christian concerns. You have not proven that they are to you, inseparable.>
Posted by: Ken | September 28, 2006 2:34 PM
kevin s.,
"If we both drop the issue, gay marriage remains illegal."
Not where I live it isn't. Nor has it been "illegal" for more than 5 years. The same holds true in Massachusetts, and at least 4 other countries, and that doesn't even include those States and countries that have 'civil' unions.
"What I suspect you meant is "just give us our way, and we'll drop it."
You "suspect" wrongly. Again. I said, and I meant, treat us equally before the law - something allegedly 'guaranteed' in the Constitution.
"Unless I misread you."
You sure did. What you do is called bearing false witness.>
Posted by: curiouser and curiouser... | September 28, 2006 4:49 PM
Payshun,
"Gay marriage is going to happen and there is nothing that any conservative right wing pastor can do about it."
It already IS happening, not 'going to happen'.
And the 'right' hate us for it. They SAY they don't "hate" us, but they say hateful, untrue things about us. Their actions disprove what they say.>
Posted by: curiouser and curiouser... | September 28, 2006 4:51 PM
Ken,
I do not undertand the need of people on the 'right' for "doctrinal non-negotiables".
I was raised as a Pentecostal. Their 'doctrinal non-negotiables" included:
- going to movies was a "sin",
- dancing was a "sin",
- divorce was NOT permittted.
Now their are Pentecostal movie review sites, 'good' Pentecostal persons can now attend Youth Dances, and not only can pentecostals divorce, they can also now re-marry - within the Church (although a bit too late to help 2 of my (very) heterosexual sisters who were forced to re-marry outside of the Church.
To quote Maya Angelou, "We do the best with what we know; and when we know more, we'll do better."
I think many mainstream/mainline/'rightwing'/evangelical/traditional Churches are 'learning' more about what it means to follow Jesus, and discovering that demonizing gay people is not a "Christian" tenet, nor is acting to enshrine discrimination into the Constitution.
Perhaps the only "doctrinal non-negotiable" should be "Love one another" or, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". This is, after all, the "sum of the laws and the prophets".>
Posted by: curiouser and curiouser... | September 28, 2006 4:59 PM
I agree but it is not happening everywhere and that's the problem. In my state it is not there yet. I want it to happen because its only fair.
The idea that marriage is a religious and spiritual construct is silly in a secular society. It's only spiritual for those that see it that way. We live in secular society where everyone should have access to the same rights as everyone else.
That's not happening and that's because rightwingers are scared that their monopoly on power is being questioned. It's all about fear. The family will not be destroyed because two men get married. The family is destroyed when a father cheats on a wife...
p>
Posted by: Payshun | September 28, 2006 7:56 PM
Ken,
I think it is interesting that in a response to a blog about making room at the table for everyone, you want to know what the rules for being "in and out" are. That is the very thing that has drawn many to Sojourners--there is room for all who feel passionate about social justice and Christ's call to care for the "least of these." I would dare to say that the doctrine is "Love God with all your heart and love your neighbor as yourself." You don't have to agree with Jim Wallis all the time or Bill Batstone or any other commentator.
Food for thought for the journey.>
Posted by: OHDeaconess | September 28, 2006 10:12 PM
curiouser and curiouser/OHDeaconess
Doctrinal non negotiables are doctrines that cannot be negotiated, which the christian church has held to for the majority of its 2000 years. The trinity, the deity of Christ, the inerrancy of Scripture, salvation by grace through faith in Christ alone... These, and a few others are what have been the orthodox faith of Christianity and without which would cease to be Christian.
It was Amy Sullivan who said she was orthodox. That word has meant something over the course of time and we could say that it all amounts to loving God and neighbor, but it is possible that some people in the Galatian churches believed in loving God and neighbor but still got labelled "heretic" by Paul for doing away with salvation by grace through faith alone. To love God is to obey God - socially, morally, theologically. Sojourners is right to say to the Right "let's not restrict our social concerns to abortion and gay marriage". It is wrong to not include, at least in its belief statements, that it holds as non negotiable, the essential elements of the Christian faith.
I gotta go. There is a beer with my name on it sitting next to a cigar waiting to be lit in front of a movie dying to be watched.>
Posted by: Ken | September 29, 2006 3:11 AM
Wesleyan orthodoxy would hold that saving faith cannot exist separate from good works, so now that beomes negotiable. Wesleyan orthodoxy also holds that perfection is attainable in this life (that's a position that most laypeople in the Wesleyan tradition ignore today). Wesleyan orthodoxy holds that the truth of scripture cannot be discovered separately from human experience, church tradition, andthe power of reason. And I dare anyone to say that John Wesley was not orthodox (though he flirted with Arminianism).
Now what were we saying was non-negotiable?>
Posted by: Carter | September 29, 2006 6:27 PM
Wesleyan orthodoxy is a denominational distinctive and that is not what we are talking about. Wesley and Whitefield disagreed in the area of Calvinism/Arminianism (Wesley didn't just "flirt" with it)and agreed to go their separate ways in their evangelistic works, but they knew that the other was a real Christian because they agreed on the non-negotiable elements of the faith.>
Posted by: Ken | October 1, 2006 1:00 AM
Ken,
So were all of the examples that I posted from the Pentecostal experience considered "denominational distinctives".
Institutions change or they die - deservedly so, imnsho.>
Posted by: curiouser and curiouser... | October 2, 2006 6:07 PM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?