Recently in Evangelicals Category

Yesterday, Ed Schultz posed a question on both his radio program and his MSNBC show:  Where is the religious community on health care? 

Ed, a Christian who admits he is not a regular churchgoer, sees the issue in pretty simple terms.  Jesus healed the sick.  For free.  Period.  Why aren't churches out on the front lines arguing for a compassionate government that will care for the infirm, ill, and dying?  After all, don't these same people understand that America is somehow a Christian nation?

Hey, Ed, I'm a fan.  And since I was driving to the beach, I listened to you for two hours get more and more heated--and take some pretty heated calls--on the issue.  I was with you, buddy.  But I think you missed a thing or two.  Let me help you get the religion story straight.

First, many mainline and liberal churches are on the front lines with this issue.  For example, the Episcopal Church's policy office issued an alert to Episcopalians to contact their members of Congress and has tried to answer questions regarding the current legislation.  And they aren't the only ones.  Most American mainline denominations have policy offices working on this issue (and some have for quite a number of years now, around SCHIP and other health concerns).  In addition to denominational efforts, on August 10, cooperating groups across a theological spectrum kicked off "40 Days of Health Care Reform" campaign to rally faith communities to support new health care policies.   There are lots of Christians--mainstream, mainline, moderate, liberal, emergent, and progressive ones--who care about healing as a social and spiritual issue.

Second, and I say this quite ruefully to you, Ed:  mainstream religion is of little interest to most of the media.  Ed, while you may be quite supportive of the Episcopal Church or the 40 Days Campaign, you really wanted to know where James Dobson, Joel Osteen, Rick Warren, and Franklin Graham stood on health care.  Ed, you wanted to know about the leaders of the conservative evangelical community--the big TV preachers and religious right political types.

I can tell you where they are.  They are hiding.  Some people think that evangelical opposition to abortion is keeping them away from the health care bill (the abortion issue is a factor worrying some Roman Catholics).  But I think that many conservative evangelicals are using abortion as a way to duck addressing the issue.  In Washington, religious leaders know that abortion is pretty much off the table in regards to the health care bill.  The Hyde Amendment will keep the government from paying for abortion (as long as the Hyde Amendment remains in force) and private insurance companies will--or will not--pay for abortion as their policies dictate.  As you rightly pointed out, Ed, abortion stays status quo in the current discussion.

The real thing keeping these leaders from speaking out is that large segments of their audiences suspect that President Obama is the Antichrist, the long-predicted evil political leader who will usher in a universal socialist state, complete with a false religion that will doom untold millions to eternal damnation with "666" stamped on our foreheads.  "Becoming Russia" is code language for these fears--whether overtly or intuitively understood.

In other words, Ed, this isn't a health care debate.  This is the Apocalypse.

The most chilling aspect of the apocalyptic fever gripping the Bible Belt right now?  I can't think of a time when American fundamentalists believed that the Antichrist was the President of the United States.  Typically, fundamentalists have identified the Antichrist as someone outside the United States--Hitler, Stalin, Gorbachev, or Saddam Hussein to name a few recent candidates.  A few fundamentalists thought Bill Clinton might be the Antichrist, but he was more often seen as the "forerunner" the real bad guy, a kind of wicked John the Baptist-type preparing the way for the big apocalyptic show.   And for whatever perverse reason, Barack Obama is seen as the real thing.  Some Christians have turned inward for the Antichrist; President Obama is the darkness (and I mean "dark") within.  

In other words, Ed, don't expect any sort of rational discussion--or even biblical argument about a compassionate Jesus--to convince these folks.  This isn't rational and sophisticated theology is out of the question.  This is pretty much the worst kind of religion that can be imagined--apocalyptic fervor and biblical literalism stoked by the fears of racism and xenophobia--the sort of stuff that makes me think that the neo-atheists have a point.  Wonder why the town halls are so heated?  It isn't that religion isn't in the room.  Bad religion--and lots of it--is present in the room.  It just isn't the sort of religion that you or I approve of Ed.  It isn't about healing the sick; it isn't about caring for the least of these.   It isn't really about Jesus.  It is about wide-eyed fear over the end of the world as some people know it.

And the only thing that can possibly speak to it is sane religion, the simple teachings of Jesus:  Heal the sick, care for the poor.  

Alec Baldwin wants me to move on and not pay attention to the Mark Sanford fandango.  I basically agree.  But over the last couple of days I have been wondering why the Mark Sanford affair rankles me more than, say, the Elliot Spitzer affair.  And it is, of course, because of Sanford's hypocracy. 

Mark Sanford has made a career of moralizing against other people.  The (until soon) Governor voted to impeach then President Bill Clinton for his moral illegitimacy and claims that marriage among gays and lesbians undermines the institution.  On the other hand, Elliot Spitzer never threw stones against other adulterers knowing full well that the shards of glass of his own house might cut him.  He also was a staunch supporter of gay marriage, perhaps because he was inspired by the determination of the gay community to be married in the face of all obstacles, when he could and did take his marriage for granted.

It is the bald hypocrisy of Sanford that makes me gloat over his downfall.  But it begs the question of the font of his hypocrisy.  Unfortunately, I think it may be faith.  Sanford is constantly described as a man of deep faith.  Instead of his faith giving him insight into the deep fallible nature of humans and fueling his compassion for others; his faith has been used as a moralizing bludgeon for attack and condemnation. 

Now that it is his turn in the shame spotlight he will assuredly use his faith to promote a repentance and forgiveness scheme for himself like the Ted Haggards.  But the damage he has done and his systematic judgment of others he used as the faithful ladder of his career has lost its power to elevate. 

All that Sanford and the other hypocrites like him can hope for is that God will break them of their arrogance and make them new as people of compassion and acceptance.  

(cross posted from Faithfuldemocrats.com)

            Last week, I had the honor of sitting next to a group of Gold Star Moms during the National Memorial Day concert.  We talked about their sons and exchanged some tearful hugs during the extremely moving concert.   The next day, the militant pro-life group, Operation Rescue, sent a mass email to its members entitled "Tiller Abortion Worker Honored At White House By Obama."  The email condemned President Obama for inviting to the White House a woman who volunteered in George Tiller's clinic as "yet another connection between Obama and late-term abortionist George Tiller."  The woman in question was a Gold Star Mom, and she was invited to the White House on Memorial Day (along with all the other Gold Star mothers I'd sat with at the concert) for no other reason than to commemorate their sons and daughters who were killed in action. 

The rhetoric from the far right often saddens me but seldom generates a real emotional reaction, but I was furious when I read Operation Rescue's email.   At first, I couldn't decide whether I was more upset that Operation Rescue was trying to score cheap political points off of the death of this woman's son, or that they were so intent on proving their point about the threat of Obama's pro-choice administration that they felt completely justified in twisting the facts and ignoring the truth.   But following Tiller's murder by a man who regularly posted on Operation Rescue message boards, I have decided that while using a U.S. soldier's death to try to score political points is more deplorable, the complete disregard for the truth in a pursuit of justice is more dangerous. 

Obama didn't "honor a Tiller abortion worker," and the Gold Star Mom event in no way demonstrated another connection between Obama and Tiller.  When Christians decide lies are the best way to inspire the "faithful" to fight for justice, and when Christians demonstrate through our actions that we believe that any means are justified as long as the end is just, we are lost.  The annoying thing about morality and ethics is that sometimes they make it difficult for us to get what we want immediately...and they may even make us reexamine our motives and priorities. 

As our society becomes increasingly governed by the sound bite and as we divide into ideologically homogenous groups to get our news, discuss our faith, and engage in our politics, we see more and more examples of Americans deciding morality and truth are luxuries we cannot afford in our righteous quest for justice.  We break 200 years of tradition and torture prisoners because we face threats so dire that laws of man and God no longer apply.  And lest the left get too self-righteous, there is little difference between Operation Rescue hosting chat rooms where protestors are encouraged to target Tiller's church and opponents of Prop 8 posting the names and home addresses of donors to the gay marriage ban.

As our specific causes become increasingly important in our own eyes, as the perceived threats to them become increasingly immediate and dire, and as our opponents are increasingly turned into demonized caricatures void of feeling or humanity, "justice" becomes just another word for "revenge" and we teeter on the verge of becoming Dostoevsky's Grand Inquisitor who kills Christ to save the Church...because Christ's message of meekness and mercy is not what the times call for.   

  And so while Operation Rescue may not have pulled the trigger, they created a culture that justified their web team's decision that in the times we live in they did not need to follow Christ's command to be truthful in all things or to comfort the suffering since such commands would have hobbled their righteous and just purpose...and tragically, it was just a small step for someone who was constantly bombarded by their alarmist rhetoric to decide that Christ wanted him to murder another of God's children.  

Every time we demonize another, stand as righteous judge over our brother, and seek justice devoid of grace or mercy, there are consequences.  And when we decide that we will fight God's battles with the devil's weapons of lies and force, we should not be surprised when we create monsters. 

My young daughter is a dedicated fan of the TLC program Jon and Kate Plus Eight, a reality show of a wholesome family with a set of twins and a set of sextuplets.  Over the weekend, TLC ran a marathon of four seasons of the show leading up to the beginning of its fifth season on Monday night.  I confess--I spent a good number of hours watching the reruns with her. 

Rather unbelievably, the fourth season ended with parents Jon and Kate Gosselin renewing their wedding vows and--within just a few weeks--a tabloid explosion of scandalous rumors of the couple's marriage failing apart amid allegations of affairs.  In the world of reality TV, news doesn't get much bigger than this.  For months, fans, bloggers, and the tabloid press have been speculating:  How would season five open?  Would Jon and Kate stay together?  Would they get divorced? 

The scandal is exacerbated by the fact that Jon and Kate are evangelical Christians.  The Gosselins are folk heroes in the evangelical community--their sextuplets were the result of infertility treatments during which they refused selective abortion and carried all six babies to term.  TLC downplays the religious aspects of the show, but legions of conservative church-going fans delighted in Kate's stern discipline, cheered Jon wearing T-shirts emblazoned with Bible verses, and devoured the couple's Christian parenting books.  The show is something strangely compelling--the cute little kids and the endlessly cranky parents trying hard to make a good Christian family. 

The new season's opening episode recorded a familial train wreck.  Indeed, Jon barely participated in his sextuplet's fifth birthday while an emotionally drained Kate struggled alone to pull of the party.   In individual interviews, the couple talked about how hard their relationship is--how they've become "different" people--and how divorce was a distinct possibility.

As I watched, I recalled another show--An American Family--the original family reality show that PBS aired in 1973.  Conceived as a video diary of a liberal middle-class American family, the Louds of Santa Barbara, the program quickly devolved into the chronicle of crisis--complete with boundary-pushing teens and the wife confronting her philandering husband and demanding a divorce.  The Louds made big news--including the cover of Newsweek on the breakdown of the American family.

Which, of course, brings us back to Jon and Kate.  If the Loud saga depicted the crisis of the liberal 1970s family, what does Jon and Kate's tale reveal about the state of the evangelical family?  Is this where their politics of "family values" have taken conservative evangelicals?  Are the Gosselins the Louds of the Christian right?  

In Jon and Kate's case, evangelical gender expectations seem to be the root of their troubles: they reversed the parental roles.  After a couple of seasons, Jon decided to stay at home and Kate went on the road to promote the show and their books.  The choice made Jon increasingly sullen and Kate happier and began to wear at their relationship.   For evangelicals, this is an unusual arrangement that leaves the husband open to charges of "feminization" and the wife of being difficult.  The Gosselin's tensions demonstrate how unsuccessfully conservative religious groups have been dealing with gender--and how when a woman like Kate Gosselin breaks with tradition in order to pursue what she loves--even when her business is family and motherhood--she gets both blamed and punished for problems in her relationships. 

Kate kept saying, "it is so complex; it is so difficult," unable to stop her tears.  In a way, she embodies many evangelical women who struggle between the role of homemaker that their churches assign them and of finding interesting and creative work in the world.   Kate, despite all her pretentions to tradition, is actually a very contemporary woman with feminist inclinations--one who is figuring out that her theology is at odds with the way life works out.  She often violates the mores of a nice evangelical mom (which I think is part of the appeal; she is, in many ways, an evangelical fantasy mother).  She clearly likes travel, Oprah interviews, and book signings.  Staying at home with eight kids can be a drag, so she left her husband with them only to find out that there may have been a girlfriend, too.  Success, good children, happy marriage--are they all possible within her theological framework?  "I have a lot of anger," she said on Monday's program.  I bet. 

How dreary it is to watch a relationship implode on national television.  In some measure, the failure is theirs.  But the conservative evangelical community shares some of that failure, too.  The religious world to which Jon and Kate belong never successfully navigated the gender changes of the last three decades, insisting that happiness can still be found in hierarchical roles of male superiority and female submission.  Having rejected feminist theology, evangelicals can't really navigate contemporary marriage issues like those facing Jon and Kate.  They made celebrities of the Gosselins for being traditionalists, yet that success eroded the very basis of the traditionalism on which their family was based.  Now, the woman is criticized for that same success by an increasingly cruel media and tabloid press.   I just wonder if all those church people will turn on you next.   

You are right, Kate.  It is complex and difficult.  It makes me angry for you.

There is a great post over on faithfuldemocrats about the unfortunately decision by Liberty University to revoke the charter for it's college Democrats b/c the Democratic platform was unChristian.  Check it out, and then join the facebook petition to reinstate the College Dems.

http://faithfuldemocrats.com/index.php?option=com_myblog&show=Liberty-Universitys-Anti-Democratic-Assault-on-Free-Speech.html&Itemid=148