According to a recent article on the Christianity Today Web site, leaders of the Religious Right are taking exception to the nomenclature that others use to describe them. “There is an ongoing battle for the vocabulary of our debate,” Gary Bauer, a leader of the Religious Right, told Sarah Pulliam, author of the article. “It amazes me how often in public discourse really pejorative phrases are used, like the ‘American Taliban,’ ‘fundamentalists,’ ‘Christian fascists,’ and ‘extreme Religious Right.’” Okay, I understand the objections to “American Taliban” and “Christian Fascists.” And the modifier “extreme” may also be incendiary–though hardly, in my view, inappropriate. As a general rule of thumb, I believe that individuals and (to a lesser degree) organizations should have the prerogative to determine how they are addressed, or at least to have significant input into the determination of that nomenclature. The movement of politically-conservative evangelicals that coalesced late in the 1970s has had several monikers: Moral Majority (the particular name of Jerry Falwell’s political organization), the Religious Right, the Christian Right, and (oddly) the New Christian Right. The last term, “New Christian Right,” is the one that I’ve always found the most puzzling. The modifier “new” suggests that there was something, sometime in the past, that might be described as the Old Christian Right — whether or not that phrase was used. As a historian, however, I’d be hard-pressed to identify anything that fit that description. Evangelical social and political activism in the nineteenth century could never be described as listing toward the right. On the contrary, evangelical activists invariably took the part of those who were disadvantaged — women, minorities, prisoners, the poor — a predilection utterly missing from the Religious Right in the decades surrounding the turn of the twenty-first century. I suppose you could apply the term “Old Christian Right” to the crusty anticommunists like Billy James Hargis or Carl McIntire, who flourished in the middle decades of the twentieth century. But they were marginal figures, even among evangelicals, and they hardly constituted a movement. I have a personal objection to the term “Christian Right.” As a person of faith I, frankly, don’t find much that I would identify as “Christian” in the actions and agenda of the religious right: support for an unjust war, tax cuts for the affluent, and capital punishment, coupled with a refusal to denounce torture or act to retard global warming. How does this agenda square with the teachings of the One who invited his followers to love their enemies, to be peacemakers, to care for “the least of these,” and who expressed concern for the tiniest sparrow? When I was growing up as an evangelical in the 1950s and 1960s, my mother repeatedly counseled me that when anyone asked my religion, I was to reply that I had no religion; I was a Christian. For my mother, as well as for at least a generation of evangelicals, “Christian” was a label of honor and distinction. It marked us off as followers of Jesus. Identifying oneself as a “Christian” was infinitely preferable to being merely “religious.” Given the policies and the tactics associated with this movement of politically conservative evangelicals over the course it its thirty-year history, 1978 to 2008, the term “Religious Right” is perfectly appropriate. (cross posted from Religious Dispatches)
Beliefnet
Advertisement
posted February 19, 2009 at 2:33 pm
Andrew Sullivan uses Christianist, and I see nothing wrong with Christian Fascists….I think the shoe fits.
Sadly, I can hardly bear to call myself a Christian anymore, preferring instead something benign like “person of faith” or “Methodist”…and I have to remind myself at least once a day as I grumble about something the Christian right has done that, “oh yeah, I’m kind of one of them.”
I don’t read Christianity Today, mainly because I think it’s a sad, sad commentary on the state of Christianity today. But I heard about this discussion from another forum, that I’ve linked here (http://wonkette.com/406241/406241) — maybe, considering the alternatives –the Religious Right/Christian Fascists/American Taliban shouldn’t protest too much.
posted February 19, 2009 at 3:57 pm
Maybe they should be called the Christian Wrong, since they seem to be against everything Christ said or maybe pharisses
posted February 19, 2009 at 4:48 pm
As someone who’s writing a dissertation about this movement, I prefer “Christian Right” over “Religious Right” for several reasons.
The first is precisely because of its specificity. Despite some efforts on their part to bring in the occasional token Jew, the leadership of this movement and the rank-and-file define themselves as specifically Christian – not just religious. An honest examination of the movement reveals that a vast majority of them are, in fact, Christian; why then should we not identify their religious affiliation?
The second reason is that calling them the Christian Right also enables those of us who oppose their aims to criticize them based on the narratives of Christianity. I think calling them out as “Christian” actually strengthens the case that they’ve run afoul of the historical social consensus of Christianity, rather than weakening it as you suggest; calling them “Christian” indicates that they’re going to be measured against the narrative of Jesus, not against some vague notion of religiosity.
In other words, by calling out the Christian domination of the movement, we make it clear to them that whatever they say or do, the respect or disrespect with which they treat those who disagree with them, the love or hatred they show to others, will reflect upon the name of Christ. I still hope against hope that this consideration will lead them to play a more positive role in our national discourse, even if the evidence for this hope continues to be sparse.
The third reason is that it makes clear to those of us who are Christian but not part of the Christian Right that these are our brothers and sisters, and that we need to respectfully but vigorously contend with them rather than simply ignoring them. Their actions reflect not only on Christ, but on us; and as such, rather than slinking back and saying we have nothing to do with them, we need to be at the forefront of those standing up against them and modeling how to lovingly but firmly oppose those with whom we share a religious tradition and fellowship. In short, it reminds us that they’re Christian too… and that the dispute between us and them isn’t external to our faith but deeply internal to it.
posted February 19, 2009 at 4:56 pm
(Previous comment cross posted from my blog on the Matthew 25 Network)
posted February 19, 2009 at 10:43 pm
Your moral equivocation of the following is what is most dangerous about Liberal Theology.
I have a personal objection to the term “Christian Right.” As a person of faith I, frankly, don’t find much that I would identify as “Christian” in the actions and agenda of the religious right: support for an unjust war, tax cuts for the affluent, and capital punishment, coupled with a refusal to denounce torture or act to retard global warming. How does this agenda square with the teachings of the One who invited his followers to love their enemies, to be peacemakers, to care for “the least of these,” and who expressed concern for the tiniest sparrow?
J.G. Machen thoroughly refuted the theological views of Liberalism in his work Christianity and Liberalism. The main problem is that Liberal Theology tries to replace Jesus as the object of our faith and replace Him with sinful man as the focus of our faith.
God is ultimate control of nature, He sends wind, rain, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and there is nothing we can do to make a serious change in that. All global warming alarmism does it seek to put man at the center of the universe and dethrone the one true God. The prophet Jeremiah has some choice words about God’s control of nature.
As to your move comparing the “least of these” to birds, is dangerous equivocation. Anything that equates mankind to animals devalues the fact that we, you and I, are created in God’s image. And if the unborn do not qualify as the epitome of the “least of these” then I do not know who does. It is you Liberals that support the mass murder of the unborn and even now crossing over into outright infanticide and that is evil. You can label me anything you like, but is seems rather clear that when you judge these things according to God’s Word in both Old and New Testaments that the Liberal approach justifies sin and seeks to place man as the sole arbitrator of good and evil.
posted February 21, 2009 at 8:00 pm
I think this debate is futile. The bottom line is that (fill in your preferred term for politically active religious conservatives) will quickly garner a negative connotation, simply because as a whole they are viewed negatively by a large segment of the country.
I disagree with James’ argument that “Christian Right” is more accurate. Political trends indicate that the generality is warranted – politically speaking, Catholics, Jews, Evangelicals, Muslims, and Mormons are more similar than they are different. Lots of studies show that the more active one is in their faith, the more likely they are to vote in agreement with “Religious Right” causes. What’s more, a number of these subgroups would be uncomfortable being identified as “Christian Right,” despite their political unity, and a number of Christians would prefer not to identify with them.