The liberal group Protestants for the Common Good has issued a "Statement on the Christian Right," drafted by Chris Gamwell of the University of Chicago Divinity School, a scholar, teacher, and person of great integrity (who I was privileged to have as a teacher). It offers a theological assessment of what distinguishes the Christian Political Right from (roughly) the Christian Political Left. While obviously a critique of the Christian Right, it is written with Gamwell's characteristic care and is worth pondering.
A few excerpts follow, with my comments inserted in bold. I wonder what others think. Does the statement accurately identify some different theological bases of the Christian political right and left? Does it mischaracterize the Right, and if so where? Do its categories apply to Catholics in the political right and left? What about those Christian political approaches (Catholic and other) that cut across political alignments (e.g. the "consistent ethic of life")?
On the Christian Political Right, the larger social setting is seen as a stage for the church, in which salvation is proclaimed and worked out. This view certainly affirms that the whole creation is God’s, and Christians are to serve the needs of all people. But love for those outside the Christian community cares, above all, that they, too, should accept Jesus as their Lord and become members of the community of believers. Typically, salvation is seen to express itself in a pious life that anticipates and prepares for another world, eternal life in heaven. . . . Thus, the center of moral concern for those who take this view is the Christian community itself, and moral exhortation primarily directs Christians to practices through which the integrity and growth of the church and its members are sustained and pursued. . . .
In line with this view, political activities are chiefly concerned to create a proper background for the practice of “true religion.” A pious life exhibits a certain personal character or certain virtues, those that subdue or conquer temptations to find happiness in the things of this world. For those on the Christian Right, our society is hostile to such virtues, being so pervasively corrupted by secularism and its permissive sanction for life aimed at satisfying worldly wants. . . .
This is why political purposes of the Christian Right concentrate almost entirely on so-called traditional values, which include virtues of family commitment and sexual control, taking responsibility for oneself, readiness to work with diligence, obedience to the law and local mores, charity toward the victim of misfortune, and religious piety itself. We, too, wish to affirm the importance of personal virtues. Our basic disagreement comes because, for the Christian Right, these so dominate the things with which politics should be concerned. Guided by this concentration, the political agenda of this movement is centered on issues such as abortion, same-sex relationships, educational curriculum, prayer in the public schools, the discipline of law and order, and governmental accommodation of religion. [But some of the listed agenda items, especially the anti-abortion position, involve matters not only of "personal virtue" but of justice for the broadest human community, the alternative Christian emphasis that Prof. Gamwell commends below. Moreover, one example of "accommodation of religion" is the push for the "faith-based initiative," which likewise seeks to serve others but asserts that they will be best served through programs involving conversion of heart and personal responsibility.] . . .
Protestants for the Common Good presents a different understanding of the New Testament witness: The church has its distinctive importance as a servant to God’s will for the inclusive human community and, therefore, is not itself the center of moral concern. The God whom we experience through Jesus loves all the world, and God’s purpose calls all humans to accept God’s love as their only ultimate assurance. Salvation is this acceptance and expresses itself by loving all others as oneself. This is the fundamental commandment for all humans, encompassing all other moral responsibilities, and every person is the neighbor for each of us. . . . The church, therefore, is commisioned to proclaim the decisive revelation of God's love through Jesus Christ and to pursue among all people a beloved community. . . .
Mutuality, then, is the purpose of the whole human community, stretching from family and friendship to the widest social and political forms. . . . Politics is concerned with the most general context of mutuality. Principles of justice assign to politics its part in the community of love. The Christian vision of justice, therefore, includes laws and policies that provide or promote for all the most general conditions through which people are empowered to enhance their communities. Conditions of safety, health, and self-respect; material provision and opportunity for work; education; cultural richness; beauty and integrity in the environment; a favorable pattern of associations, including freedom of association; and a community of democratic rights, including religious freedom — these are the general sources that empower people to achieve, and they are the business of justice. . . .
Focus by the Christian Political Right on the personal character of individuals as if the communal sources of empowerment do not matter violates the community of love and distorts the gift and demand of God’s love revealed through Jesus Christ. The result is a callous neglect of social and political inequities and the suffering they cause, as well as the loss to our common life when human potential is denied just access to conditions of achievement. [Again, the distinction between "personal character" and communal empowerment may be overdrawn, since the former may be essential to the latter's effectiveness; though I agree that the possibility for emplowerment from the broader society can get ignored too easily.] On the Christian Right, moreover, concern focused on private virtue has too often led to narrow and rigid ideas of morality and thus a call for government to impose parochial standards of behavior that stigmatize
Beyond this, there is a threat to democracy itself. Seeing the world as background for the church, many on the Christian Right believe that political choices should be based on biblical authority and advocate laws and policies solely by appeal to revelation in scripture. [I don't think this is true of thoughtful Christian conservatives -- as opposed to perhaps some loud voices -- any more than thoughtful Christian liberals believe in "anything goes" or "follow whatever is the world's new fad."] But government by the people means government by all the people, so that laws and policies should be decided through full and free discussion and debate. The assertion of religious authority as the sole basis for those decisions is incompatible with both democracy and Christian commitment. [Presumably, this includes appeals to magisterial authority as well to scripture.] . . . [By contrast,] we embrace the democratic discussion and debate and believe that our vision of the beloved human community, derived from our experience of Jesus, can appeal to reasons grounded in common human experience. [Again, on many issues, such as abortion and same-sex marriage, the Christian Right can and does appeal to common human experience -- whether or not one thinks the particular arguments are convincing.] . . .
We [a]gree with many on the Christian Right for whom [an] idolatry [of materialism] is hostile to important private virtues. With them, we affirm the need for personal character because mutuality is gravely threatened when dedication to intimate relationships, taking responsibility where one can, and charity for those who suffer are widely missing. But the true ideal is not, as the Christian Political Right believes, a common life in which private morality is sufficient. We are called to maximize the common good because God wills the highest happiness for all through a human community of love and the requisite virtues include a passion for justice.
The vision Prof. Gamwell articulates shares some features with a model that I've argued has characterized recent theories of mission in mainline Protestantism: the ideal of a "Servant Church" serving the broader world. (As he puts it, the broader community, not the church itself, is the focus of moral concern.) I've argued that the "servant church" aspect of that ideal is extremely attractive, but that Christian conservatives (Protestant and Catholic) can be promoting the "servant church" ideal too, and that mainline churches, in providing their service to the broader world, can get way too sanguine about accepting the methods and parameters of that world.
Tom
New York Times
March 5, 2006
Responses to the Review of 'Breaking the Spell'
By JENNIFER SCHUESSLER
In this week's Book Review, philosopher Daniel Dennett writes to protest Leon Wieseltier's strongly critical review
of his book "Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon," in
which Dennett uses evolutionary theory to explain how religious belief
took root in the human mind, how it evolved, whether it's really good
for us, and if it isn't how we can get rid of it. But Wieseltier's
review also prompted heated conversation in the blogosphere, with one
blogger calling it "a kind of political/theological Rorschach test" in
a time of passionate debate over the proper relationship between
science and religion.
At Leiter Reports,
University of Texas philosophy professor Brian Leiter challenges
Wieseltier's "sneering" dismissal of the idea that science can shed
some light on all aspects of human life. "'The view that science can
explain all human conditions and expressions, mental as well as
physical' is not a 'superstition' but a reasonable methodological
posture to adopt based on the actual evidence, that is, based on the
actual expanding success of the sciences . . . during the last hundred
years," writes Leiter.
Silly Humans, Three Quarks Daily and The Secular Outpost
offer more criticism in the same vein, with Silly Humans taking aim in
particular at Wieseltier's accusations that Dennett is guilty of
"scientism." "Scientism," writes Silly Humans' Michael Bains, is "the
ultimate meme. It is insanely inane since it ignores the fact that
Science is only a method for revealing the material workings of
reality. Since it misdefines what science is, it says absolutely
nothing about it." While generally sympathetic to Dennett, Chris Mooney
at the Intersection
takes issue with some of Dennett's own language, in particular his
"unfortunate idea" of labeling religious nonbelievers "brights," which
he floated in an op-ed in the Times in 2003.
Wieseltier finds some strong defenders at National Review Online's The Corner, though opinion is hardly unanimous. Meanwhile over at Right Reason
("the Weblog for Philosophical Conservatism"), Steve Burton
"reluctantly" offers "one cheer" for Dennett. "While it's true that an
evolutionary account of the origin of a belief cannot, strictly
speaking, refute that belief," he writes, "it can still prove deeply
disillusioning. And I think that's all Dennett is going for here." So
why only one cheer? Once the Judeo-Christian foundations of values like
democracy, justice and love wither away, Burton writes, the
evolutionary foundation that Dennett and others propose may just wither
away as well. "I fear that in Darwinist hands these ideals will come
off looking like the merest tissue of fraud and delusion."
Unsurprisingly, the review drew the interest of partisans in the ongoing battle over Intelligent Design. At Intelligent Design the Future,
a blog by Michael Behe, William Dembski and other supporters of
Intelligent Design, Jonathan Witt cites Wieseltier's review with
apparent approval, though he criticizes the Times more generally for
being "under a Darwin spell." Meanwhile, various bloggers are buzzing
about a testy email exchange last month between Dennett and Michael Ruse,
a fellow Darwinian who has been strongly critical of Dennett and others
he sees as being needlessly antagonistic toward religion. In the
exchange (which Ruse forwarded to William Dembski), Dennett wonders
whether the Book Review is "under the spell of the Darwin dreaders,"
adding "I'm afraid you are being enlisted on the side of the forces of
darkness." Ruse counters that Dennett and zoologist Richard Dawkins,
another forceful critic of religion, are "absolute disasters in the
fight against intelligent design," a battle he says the Darwinians are
"losing." Stay tuned for the next round of debate in September, when
Dawkins publishes his own book on religion, "The God Delusion."
_______________
mp
My opposition to a pharmacist's right of conscience is grounded, in significant part, on my desire to maintain a vibrant "moral marketplace" in which pharmacies can serve as limited mediating structures, carving out their own identities on contested moral issues, e.g. whether or not to offer Plan B and whether or not to honor a pharmacist's own claim of conscience absent a legal mandate. The reality of a moral marketplace presumes, of course, that the government will allow it to exist. That appears increasingly in doubt, as evidenced by Wal-Mart's announcement yesterday that it would, under pressure from various state governments, reverse its corporate policy and begin selling Plan B at all of its pharmacies nationwide. Wal-Mart indicated that it would allow individual pharmacists to refuse to dispense Plan B, subject to their willingness to refer the customer elsewhere. NARAL immediately objected even to this loophole, contending that this limited pharmacist opt-out "really does leave the door open for women to lose access."
Rob
