Does the Left Understand the Faithful?
Guest post by Peter Henne
Peter S. Henne is a Security Fellow with the Truman National Security Project and a doctoral candidate at Georgetown University.
**********
As the Supreme Court took up Salazar v. Buono last week, deciding the fate of a cross on public land, I was put in an awkward position. Once again, I squirm at the unrestrained histrionics of both sides, sinking into my chair as I did during heated debates in my religion classes in college. The reason for my discomfort? I am that rare creature, distrusted yet patronized by both sides of the culture wars: a Christian with leanings towards Biblical inerrancy who is also an unabashed progressive.
The case is the banal, tedious type that excites law students and bores the rest of us. It involves a religious symbol placed on public land, with complex reasoning and politics behind it. What upsets me is not the case itself, but the predictable nature of it all. The Left attacks a public display of religion and the Right defends America’s Christian origins. Meanwhile, a great number of Christians dedicated to their beliefs but progressive in their political views — including myself — squirm uncomfortably, unhappy with the hijacking of their faith by the Right and having to defend their religion from apparent assaults by the Left.
Progressive Christians will never whole-heartedly embrace Democrats as long we feel the need to justify our faith during waves of Left-Right tensions over religious symbols. While a vocal minority of evangelical Christians are “values-voters” — basing their political decisions primarily on single value-driven issues — most Christians are faithful voters. We vote based on our entire set of beliefs, supporting the candidate who appears to share and understand our faith. Even though certain values held by Christians are incommensurate with the GOP agenda, the GOP will continue to gain votes as long as they seem the more “faithful” of the two parties.
Democrats have long had a problem appealing to the faithful. Despite John Kerry’s Catholicism and some attempts to gain Christian, Bush handily beat Kerry among almost all Christians in 2004. This is because Democrats believed they could rely on appeals to certain issues expected to resonate with Christian voters. Meanwhile, voices on the Left critical of a public role for Christianity caused Christians to perceive a general progressive hostility towards their faith. This limited the effectiveness of Democratic outreach to Christians. In contrast, Bush presented himself as the candidate of faith in general, gaining the votes of this important electoral group.
Obama, though, has appeared much more at ease with religion. Faith has long been a central element of Obama’s message; since his speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, he has called on the faithful to reject the use of religion as a political tool by the right. In the 2008 election, Obama made significant gains among Christian voters; even his ¼ share of the evangelical vote was an improvement. These voters are very committed to their religious beliefs, and believed Obama the more faithful of the presidential candidates.
If progressives are able to maintain this image — as the party that truly understands the faithful — their share of the Christian vote will likely grow. If, in contrast, they believe that a general alignment between progressive and Christian values is sufficient to gain Christian support — despite broader hostility towards religion among some on the Left — the trend Obama began will be short-lived.
The Supreme Court case illustrates this issue perfectly. Right-wing Christians see an indelible connection between their faith and government acceptance of public Christian displays. Progressive Christians often disagree. We place a value on the separation of Church and State, but are still uneasy with criticism of the public display of Christian symbols. Right or wrong, faith involves gut reactions, and the reaction to statements by groups like the American Civil Liberties Union is to perceive an attack on the faith.
One can object that the cross in question is just a symbol: if progressive Christians truly value Church-State separation, they should support its removal. But that is the point: it is a symbol, representing a set of beliefs that guides and enriches the lives of Christians. And Christians like myself are ultimately faithful, not values-voters. While I personally will never switch allegiances to the GOP because of cases such as this, it may well sway other progressive Christians and cost Democrats future political support.
So the Democratic Party must tread lightly on issues of faith, achieving the difficult balance between appealing to the base and reaching out to the faithful. If progressives want to maintain and increase the Democratic share of Christian voters in this country, they must understand our faith and sympathize — even if they do not agree — with the value we believe it holds for this country. Merely appealing to what seem to be Christian “values” every four years will not be enough. Ultimately, the Left may have to abandon the religious symbols it fights over in favor of the broader goal of steering the country in a progressive direction, because the faithful will not.
(Also posted at The Reaction.)
116 Responses to “Does the Left Understand the Faithful?”
Thanks for the thoughtful reply, Redbus. I think I agree with everything you said.
No question there's broad agreement on how to interpret the Bible, but my point stands that it's ultimately no more informative on moral issues than a magic 8-ball. On the set of issues that everyone agrees on, such as murder and theft and slavery being bad, the accepted interpretations agree too. The Bible doesn't add to the debate of these issues because, well, there is no debate.
On the set of issues at the moral frontier–gay marriage today, slavery a century or so ago–people disagree, and the Bible doesn't help settle the matter. One side notes homosexuality is an abomination, the other notes David and Jonathan apparently getting it on in 1 Samuel. Certainly one interpretation is traditional, the other novel, but which is “right”? The question is unanswerable and distracts from the more important question: will our society be better or worse off to let gays marry?
Social change always raises questions and causes conflict. Teaching people to look for answers in the Bible merely adds distracting questions and prolongs the conflict.
Hi redbus — I just wanted to quickly address a couple little things before this thread falls off the page.
“”hypocrisy” — a term used in your original post”
I just want to be clear that I don't think there's anything fundamentally hypocritical about wanting a cross on public land. I think using the “freedom of speech” and “freedom of religion” arguments to be able to do so, while at the same time vehemently fighting against these freedoms for other religions, is where the hypocrisy lies. I do understand that we're all on a journey, none were born perfect with nothing to learn, but finding the right path sometimes requires others to tell us we're going the wrong way.
On the evolution question, it's not that all Christians are deniers — it's that all deniers are Christians. (I'm using “all” liberally, of course, to mean “a statistically overwhelming majority”). This is easily extensible to other issues. It’s not that all Christians hate gays, it’s just that the most vocal opponents to gay rights are Christian. It’s not that all Christians are against abortion, it’s just that vehement abortion obstructionists are essentially all Christian. I’d like to offer a quick analogy: most cigarette smokers do not die of lung cancer, but if you die of lung cancer, it’s overwhelmingly likely that you are or were a smoker. This is why we say that cigarettes cause lung cancer. Does that make sense? We don’t call that causation a straw man because there are lots of life long smokers who live to be old and die in their sleep.
I am glad that you have had a wonderful and positive experience with your church community, and I do truly believe that church provides that community function to so many people, and that it does tend to be quite positive for most. Do you think that the community would have been so supportive if you didn’t believe in God? I’ve never been a Christian, and because of that, most of my experiences have not been like yours.
Hey Doc.
I think that's the problem with religion as a whole. Since denominatins started breaking off from the 1st century Church, many many many interpretations have been offered. Of course, the ridiculous interpretations are included, and many have to do with “gay” people in the Bible. There are those that claim Christ, himself, was gay. Ridiculous. As with David and Jonathon, the Hebrew word for love was used “a'hab”, which is the same word used in the ten commandments for love for God. I'm pretty sure that God didn't intend for us to have gay sex with Him.
I know you weren't standing behind those interpretations, merely stating that they exist. My point is that as long as humans want what God does not condone, they will never stop trying to read things into the Bible. There are those, too, within Christianity that do the very same thing trying to justify some sort of doctrine that God did not implement. All one has to do is to do the Biblical research. Take it all into consideration, and look at God's intent. Many, so-called, Biblical scholars have done that, but most have approached it from a specific denominational perspective – which produces specific denominational bias.
The Bible is not meant to be a evolving document. It is more like the “User's Guide to the Human Soul”. Obey it, and happiness tends to follow. God wants happiness and love among His children.
As far as slavery goes, it screams volumes about the purpose of Christ. Plainly stated, if you happen to be a slave, or a master, or whatever; be thankful for all things to God, serve Him, and follow Christ's teachings. It speaks to individual worship to God and does not put it on the national scene.
The point I made earlier was intended to say that without Godly INDIVIDUALS our nation cannot succeed – per the Founding Fathers.
To get the nation back under virtue and honor (I call it Godly principles) is the goal of both nicrivera and myself. I'd like to think it's every American's goal.
That actually does not address the issue I raised of there being many paths to God. You are, again, expressing your personal understanding of God, and of what it means to live by “godly” principles (different things to different people, but you define it your own way and assume that's the baseline for everyone). You leave the words “virtue” and “honor” undefined, thereby (apparently) assuming that we all share the same perception of what those words mean. “Virtue” and 'honor” are moralistic terms and not necessarily thought by all people to define the appropriate role of government in society. You do not even entertain the possibility that anyone could reasonably come to such a conclusion.
All of the above, and more, is why I find it so difficult, frustrating, and often angering, to communicate with you about these issues. It's not two-way; there's no give and take.
My point is that as long as humans want what God does not condone, they will never stop trying to read things into the Bible.
This is a tautology. You don't know what God does or does not condone, or if “God” can even be defined in those terms. You rely on a biblically literalist understanding of the Christian version of the Bible to set up a baseline for discussion that assumes from the outset the incorrectness of all other understandings of God and of the Bible.
How can one have a fruitful discussion about this topic in this context?
Just a bit of “mopping up” to do, then that will be it for me for this thread. It's been fun!
To Jeff Davis: Have you thought of a different moniker? Seems to me that your curent one carries lots of baggage. How about Robert E. Lee? Or maybe the Dread Pirate Roberts (just kidding).
To Dr. J. — Glad you liked my last post. No doubt, there are some who use the Bible as a “magic 8-ball.” Bibiomancy, i.e. letting the Bible fall open where it might and then letting your finger randomly fall on the page to get God's guidance for you, might fit your description. It's hard to see how careful Bible study comes anywhere close to that, but as they say, we'll agree to disagree. I just hate to see the misuse of Scripture lead to folks throwing the proverbial baby out with the bathwater. Part of that “baby” in the area of moral for Jews and Christians are the Ten Commandments, which last I knew, are still carved on the walls of the SCOTUS. BTW, what is that picture? My wife and I think your pic is the child hunter from Chitty, Chitty Bang Bang.
To Kathy: Sorry if my tone somehow I came across as “arrogant” or “offensive.” I come to TMV to be educated about many things, and am always glad when those with specialties in areas where I'm lacking can enlighten the rest of us. I was attempting – perhaps in a clumsy way – to shed some light on an area to which I've given extended study.
See you guys on the next 100 comment thread.
“Bibliomancy,” huh? What a fine word!
“Misuse of scripture” is an ethical cul-de-sac which begs the eternal question “who gets to decide?” Accepted interpretations do change, and as they do both the upstart and traditionalist camps denounce each others' readings as “misuse of scripture.” Witness the Catholics and the Protestants, or lately the Episcopalians and the Anglicans. It's useless phrase for settling arguments, but it does come in handy for denouncements.
Yes, that's the child catcher. Since I seem to end up on the side of Evil in many of the discussions on here (at least to hear the progressives tell it), he seemed an appropriate avatar.
All one has to do is to do the Biblical research. Take it all into consideration, and look at God's intent.
Like Kathy, I'm having trouble squaring that with your claims that your view of God is not about religion. Once you're talking about the purpose of Christ, you're not exactly religion-neutral.
Which leaves me similarly confused about how a godly individual differs from the other kind. From what we've discussed so far, I'm thinking I might qualify as a godly atheist.
I'm sorry if Im frustrating you Kathy.
You continue to say (as do many others here) that “our definition of ___________” is different for everyone.
If you studied political science and philosophy, virtue and honor are cornerstones of nearly every one, from Machiavelli to the present. And perhaps that is the problem now. Your definition of honor and his definition of honor and my definition of honor…..are all different. Well, onve upon a time, that was not the case. Once upon a time in America, honor and virtue were universal in all walks of life. Politics held to these principles for the most part, and disagreed politically on how to run the nation. You cannot run a nation when everyone's definition of the funderlying oundation is different. And that's what the founding fathers attempted to do. Now, however, people have picked it apart and offered alternative definitions and an alternative foundation based upon an alternative source of power.
This is not my opinion. It is the political and cultural history of our nation.
And in reply to your second comment about “You don't know what God does or does not condone, or if “God” can even be defined in those terms. “
God has defined himself, and yes, I do know what God condones and prohibits. The God, Jehovah, has made it absolutely clear what is and what is not expected of his people. You have made many Jewish references, so I'll assume you already knew that. As Christians, we too know what is expected. Do you not understand that differing “interpretations” cannot all be correct? All I stated, was to go back to the first century Church and see what Christ established prior to men screwing it up with interpretation. Hey, that may be a good idea in terms of our Constitution as well.
Once again. I'm sorry if that is frustrating. With the Bible as well as the Constitution, you cannot make everyone happy by telling them they are all correct.
“Once you're talking about the purpose of Christ, you're not exactly religion-neutral”.
As I pointed out before, there is a difference in religion and faith. My faith is with God. Yes, I do attend worship with fellow humans in the faith. Our service is Christian, which is a religion. Did that make sense?
What I mean is that faith is personal and religion is shared with others of the same faith. That faith came from years of study about God and testing it, and seeing man's error through the millenia trying to add their “take” on it.
And yes, other than not accepting God (which tends to be one of His biggest requirements); you are a “Godly” atheist. And you've taught me plenty since I've been coming here. Thanks, by the way. I hope to return the favor.
Once upon a time in America, honor and virtue were universal in all walks of life. Politics held to these principles for the most part, and disagreed politically on how to run the nation.
That is false. Flat-out false. The above is untrue on its face, if you have even a minimal knowledge of U.S. history, or have done even 60 seconds of research on Google. This is not open to rational dispute. I won't support my argument, though, because apparently it's not necessary.
This is not my opinion. It is the political and cultural history of our nation.
Uh, no, it's your opinion, and not a very well-informed opinion at that.
The God, Jehovah, has made it absolutely clear what is and what is not expected of his people. You have made many Jewish references, so I'll assume you already knew that.
Oh, I do. Here is what HaShem expects of his people:
Micah 6:8
“He has told you, oh man, what is good.
And what the Lord requires of you:
Only to do justice
And to love goodness
And to walk modestly with your God;
Then will your name achieve wisdom.”
Isaiah 58, which is traditionally read in synagogue on Yom Kippur. It's a warning against empty observance:
“Why when we fasted did you not see?
When we starved our bodies, did you pay no heed?
Because on your fast day
you see to your business
and oppress all your laborers!
Because you fast in strife and contention
and you strike with a wicked fist!
Your fasting today is not such
as to make your voice heard on high.
Is such the fast I desire?
A day for men to starve their bodies?
Is it bowing the head like a bulrush
and lying in sackcloth and ashes?
Do you call that a fast,
a day when the Lord is favorable?
No, this is the fast I desire:
To unlock the fetters of wickedness,
and untie the cords of the yoke
To let the oppressed go free
To break off every yoke.
It is to share your bread with the hungry
and to take the wretched poor into your home.
When you see the naked, to clothe him
and not to ignore your own kin.
Then shall your light burst through like the dawn
And your healing spring up quickly
Your Vindicator shall march before you
The presence of the Lord shall be your rear guard
Then, when you call, the Lord will answer
When you cry, He will say: Here I am.
If you banish the yoke from your midst
The menacing hand, and evil speech,
And you offer your compassion to the hungry
and satisfy the famished creature–
Then shall your light shine in darkness,
And your gloom shall be like noonday. …
And finally, the Golden Rule, first given by the great Rabbi Hillel, as described in the Jewish tradition:
Do you not understand that differing “interpretations” cannot all be correct?
Do you understand that the teaching of the Torah is “What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor,” and that all the rest is commentary? Interpretation is all we have, and the idea that there is only one “correct” interpretation is a contradiction in terms, and clearly untrue.
All I stated, was to go back to the first century Church and see what Christ established prior to men screwing it up with interpretation.
First, I am Jewish, not Christian, so the teachings of Jesus — although they may be full of wisdom and worth reading — have no religious authority for me.
Second, Jesus did not establish any church. He was an observant Jew. Paul is generally the one credited with moving Christianity from a sect of Judaism to a separate religion, and the Church (as in the Catholic Church, which is all there was then) was not founded until centuries later.
Third, your instruction to ” to go back to the first century Church and see what Christ established prior to men screwing it up with interpretation” is illogical on its face, since no one living today has any way of knowing for certain what was established or not established and by whom and for what purpose, 2,000 years ago. By definition, all we have is interpretation. Telling us that we should “go back to the first century Church and see what Christ established,” then, is a classic example of begging the question. You yourself have to rely on an interpretation from text translated from an ancient language in order to make this assertion of authoritative and absolute certainty.
And thank you for the kind words!
To Dr. J and roro80:
I want to thank you for your excellent comments on this topic. I think you do qualify as godly atheists
I come to TMV to learn and you have certainly helped with that. I said I'd respond, so here goes.
I am very torn on this issue. When you criticize Christianity, my first response is to try to defend it. That's because I do consider myself a Christian. However, I also find many of your arguments to be very reasonable and persuasive. One thing I realized in thinking about this is that I actually have many of the same criticisms of Christians as you do. I can't stand the fact that the so-called religious right has so much political power and often ignores reason in favor of simple-minded explanations. Actually, I can't stand the fact that there exists something called the religious right in the first place. In this sense I am somewhat on the fringe of mainstream Christianity. Earlier we were talking about how one Christian can say that another is not a real Christian. . . Well, I have literally had this experience. I know for a fact that there are Christians who don't really consider my claim to being a Christian as legitimate. I fully understand why this presents a problem to you, as non-Christians, and perhaps you truly have no other choice but to take everyone at their word. roro is right about pointing out that there are different brands of Christianity. I happen to like mine better than any others I'm acquainted with, but so does everyone else, so I can see how that doesn't help you much. If you were Christian, I'd say that what you really need to do is study the teachings of Jesus for yourself and through prayer and meditation come to your own conclusion about what it really means to be a Christian. But I can see why that advice might not appeal to you, and besides, I don't want to get too far off topic. After all, this isn't a religious discussion per se, it's just a discussion about how religion impacts politics and society as a whole. I'm not out to change anyone's religion (or lack thereof).
So I think you've done a great job at presenting some good arguments from your point of view. I wanted to present my point of view for your consideration. I have considered roro's argument about “playing a numbers game” and realized that I myself do that same thing, and as a result I unfortunately have some negatives opinions about the majority of Christians. I try to be objective, so to disagree with statements such as “It’s not that all Christians hate gays, it’s just that the most vocal opponents to gay rights are Christian” would be to delude myself.
And yet, I remain faithful to my own religion, despite this. You know how members of certain racial minority groups are allowed to make fun of themselves, but they get upset if anyone else makes the same jokes? That's kind of how it feels for me when people criticize Christians. I do it all the time, but when someone else does it, I feel like they're attacking me. It's silly, so I don't respond with anger as many do, but I still feel like I have this obligation to let you know that a) we're not all like that, and b) as bad as they might seem, they're actually pretty good for the most part. You might wonder why I continue in my faith when I feel so different from the rest. Well, without getting too religious on you, I'll just say that my own personal experience with religion, despite my complaints, has been extremely positive, uplifting, enlightening, and strengthening. To deny the positive experiences I've had would also be to delude myself. Also, I feel like maybe through my example I can help other religious people to open their minds a bit you people like you folks won't have as much to complain about
Please see my comment that I posted in reply to Dr J. It's also meant for you, but this thread is off the front page now, so I didn't know if you'd see it.
Thanks for the thoughts, DLL. Despite my complaints about Christianity as an institution, I don't mean to deny the value people get from it in terms of community and personal devotion. I just never found those benefits myself. I was Catholic for the first couple decades of my life. “Dr. J the Pious” they used to call me. It didn't work out well, and my life got a lot more bearable once I cast it off.
More recently I hung out on a Christian board for a couple years trying to answer for myself the mystery of the religious right. All these normal, well-meaning people are sincerely trying to put Christ's message into action and do right by him and their neighbors. Their intentions are the best, and they work hard at putting them into practice. Yet they've translated those intentions into a bizarre set of policies, on which they seem curiously agreed: sticking their noses in other people's bedrooms, denying basic science, etc.
I came away with a better understanding of the religious right, but also with a better understanding of the larger Christian community. I learned that Christians agree on almost nothing, save a few abstract theological principles. This board had a whole spectrum of believers from very conservative to very liberal, and not only did the camps see the world and religion's place in it completely differently, they couldn't even communicate with each other. Differences of opinion were never settled, harmony restored only by retreating to the Nicene Creed or other vague platitudes, much like one steers an awkward conversation to the weather.
If you're getting a lot out of your corner of the faith but are put on the defensive trying to answer for Christians at large, that makes perfect sense. Whereas a religion at the scale of a community can be cohesive and uniform, a religion that's shared by over 2 billion people of different languages and cultures must necessarily admit a lot of diversity and have only a few common denominators.
[...] Does the Left Understand the Faithful? (themoderatevoice.com) [...]