Not yet, according to Jeff Sharlet. Sharlet was recently asked to contribute to a book on the supposed Religious Left, and he has posted the draft of his chapter at The Revealer (to which you all should subscribe).
This is a question that interests me, in part because I’m now commonly placed in the “liberal” camp, not only by self-proclaimed conservatives, but also by emergent movement leaders who wish that the theological provocations of McLaren, Pagitt, and Jones would just go away. I’ve been invited to a summit of leftward theologians in March who have a Ford Foundation grant to “rekindle theological education” among progressives.
I go into meetings like that with healthy doses of trepidation and skepticism. I don’t consider myself a “liberal” in the common, popular use of the term* (although I clearly am — as are most of us in this democracy — in the philosophical use of the term). I tend to think that the bipolarities of “liberal v. conservative” are a holdover from Enlightenment epistemology and, as such, are less and less helpful. I thought of this again as I heard Pat Buchanan proclaim on Morning Joe this morning that Obama’s cabinet picks thus far are “center-right.” I continue to think that BO was elected because Americans see in him a pragmatism reflective of William James and John Dewey (but the roots of which go back to Ralph Waldo Emerson). It’s this progressive pragmatism that is America’s real contribution to epistemology.
Anyway, back to Sharlet. He writes, in brief, of the institutionalization of the Religious Right, and of the half-hearted attempts at a Religious Left. Then he sets forth his proposal that a new movement be formed, not from homogeneity, but from strife. Money quote:
But
life, Darwin reminds us, is not a value, it’s a fact, and one defined
not by harmony but by struggle. The good news is that that is the good
news: the rowdy, pluralist approach to politics embraced by religious
leftists is the fundamental faith of America. Not perfect harmony;
glorious cacophony. “The noise of democracy,” according to President
James Buchanan, who was a failure in nearly every respect but for the
high regard in which he held the American sacrament of arguing.Brothers and sisters: Let us argue. It’s what we do best.
I am currently reading Sharlet’s latest, The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power, about the mysterious “Fellowship” that puts on the National Prayer Breakfast every year. Sharlet’s writing is breathtakingly good, and his research is unparalleled. His earlier book, Killing the Buddha: A Heretic’s Bible, (and eponymous website) is similarly excellent.
*I’ll admit it, I do drive a Volvo. But I do NOT drink lattes (unlike some people I know, who drink “venti-non-fat-vanilla-latte-extra-hot-with-a-shot-of-protein). I drink my coffee black, like all good Scandinavians.
posted December 1, 2008 at 12:51 pm
It is very difficult to know what “left” and “right” mean in religious terms. Have you ever heard of the tmatt trio? It’s a formula that is supposed to tell you where you stand on a left-right spectrum — the only thing the author of this shibboleth doesn’t tell you which answers indicate which direction.
But when it comes to people, it is easier.
The religious right (in the USA) is typified by Bob Jones.
The religious left by Dorothy Day.
And I know which one I prefer.
posted December 1, 2008 at 3:13 pm
I vote for Dorothy Day.
Duh-sciple
posted December 1, 2008 at 6:46 pm
Thanks for the kind words, Tony. Wondering if you come to your views on pragmatism by way of Cornel West — that Emerson-Dewey “progressive pragmatism” tradition sounds like his “American Evasion of Philosophy.” If that’s the case, I’m not sure Obama is in that tradition. I agree with Buchanan about the cabinet picks, as it happens — Buchanan’s a sharp observer, if a bellicose and bigoted one. But I agree with you, too, that “left” and “right” are terms of very limited use.
posted December 1, 2008 at 9:01 pm
The TJ Money quote: “I tend to think that the bipolarities of “liberal v. conservative” are a holdover from Enlightenment epistemology and, as such, are less and less helpful.”
As sharp as Buchanan might be, the right-left rhetoric is far from helpful now. We can only hope that in the years to come both politics and theology become less bipolar.
Sorry, Steve. Even this:
“The religious right (in the USA) is typified by Bob Jones.
The religious left by Dorothy Day.”
Let’s move on.
TJ – It will be fascinating to hear about the foundationalists on *the other side* of the street from the Buchanan foundationalists. Looking forward to reading Sharlet.
posted December 1, 2008 at 9:58 pm
You don’t have to call yourselves Christians. Because homosexual is not a Christian belief. You should find a new name to call yourself.. Chist did not condone homosexuality. The bible does not either. If you truly studied what the foundation of real Christianity is you will find out that it is not a gray area. It is a no on homosexuality.
So go back to basics-read your bible!
posted December 1, 2008 at 10:38 pm
As “Your name” demonstrates, the answer to Tony’s question is “Yes”.
Back in November 2004, Jeff Sharlet confessed it quite clearly, talking about questions he and Peter Manseau were asked while discussing Killing the Buddha
http://www.therevealer.org/archives/timely_001143.php
“What’s the common denominator of American faith? What is it that most of us share?
We lied every time. We offered up sincere but misleading tributes to freedom of speech as the American devotion. We avoided the answer that had made itself as plain as the two-lane roads we drove on: The greatest common denominator of American belief is anti-homosexuality.”
I will extend that to say that opposition to women’s free choice of abortion is a cross-denominational metric of the “religious right”.
What these two tenets — anti-homosexuality and anti-choice — have in common is opposition to anything other than traditional sex roles. So:
The “religious right” is anyone who believes that the most important function of religion is to support traditional sex roles.
The “religious left” is anyone who believes that the most important function of religion is *anything else*.
Anything. If opposition to abortion and/or gay marriage is not your first-tier, make-or-break religious issue, you’re on the religious left. That’s all it takes. So in a way, yeah, you could say there’s no “religious left”, because they have no unifying principle except not thinking the patriarchy is all that. The only way the religious left could be unified is by coming out (pun intended) as anti-patriarchal.
posted December 2, 2008 at 7:33 pm
I find the Right/Left distinction in politics moderately helpful; in religion, I think it’s rarely useful.
With that caveat, I will say that I see Gianni Vattimo as the quintessential Christian leftist. (Perhaps John Caputo to a lesser degree.) I see very little overlap between Vattimo and you, Tony. But who knows, I guess for others Brian McLaren is the epitome of the left-leaning Christian.
posted December 3, 2008 at 10:59 am
As a fellow Volvo driver (well, only when I am in the car with the family), I must agree with the sentiments expressed… and tell you that you will love The Family. It may be my favorite (not nec best) book I read all year (of course, I read most of it on a plane flying to DC, which gave it added weight).
It is THAT good. I wish all scholarly journalism was as compelling.
rick bennett
posted February 1, 2010 at 12:40 am
I think we all need to think beyond the regional boundaries to get going.
Pingback: Comment of the Day - The New Christians