Culture war weary
Posted by Carol Howard Merritt on 19 Dec 2008 at 03:00 pm | Tagged as: Democrats, church, pastors, progressive christianity
As most of us know, Barack Obama asked Rick Warren to open at the Inauguration, and there has been a bit of frustration sparking around the Internet around the choice.
Why is it? After all, Obama also invited Rev. Joseph Lowery, a great Civil Rights leader, to close in prayer, showing a balance in judgment and religious convictions.
Warren is an affable guy, who has sold a gazillion books. He has a rigid stance against abortion and same-sex unions, but he has been willing to invite Obama to Saddleback (Warren’s mega-church), and sit at the table with Obama, even with many evangelicals wanted Obama to leave.
Warren refuses to publicly endorse any candidate [12/19 edit. I was wrong. He endorsed W in 2004], which is a switch from so many religious leaders who once handed out “voting guides” to their congregants. Although Warren strongly holds to the social positions of the Religion Right, he has also pushed them to be compassionate on other issues, like AIDS.
On one hand, this move shows that Obama is willing to reach out. He’s been smart with how he extends his hand to evangelicals, realizing that they are a strong force, but also not willing to bow to their staunch convictions. He has not flinched at talking about his Christianity, and been able to capture the votes of a new generation of evangelicals. And, Warren helped him do it, so it makes sense that Obama extends the invitation.
So why is this move so distasteful to so many religious leaders?
The Post says that the furor is because of the Internet. They explain that the views of most preachers used to stay within the walls of the church, but now with YouTube, sermon posts, and iPod downloads, all of our thoughts and opinions are open for public consumption beyond the flock.
Strangely, The Post writes:
Although Warren’s views are not far from those of other clergy members who could have been asked to deliver the invocation, Obama found himself emphasizing his own record as “a fierce advocate of equality for gay and lesbian Americans.”
Which made me scratch my head. “Other clergy members who could have been asked to deliver the invocation”? They must be talking about Billy Graham and Co. Are they implying that there’s a short list of pastors, comprised of leaders who are good enough, and they are all fighting against same-gender rights? If they want another list… I can think of a lot of wonderful pastors upon whom they can call.
Frankly, I don’t think there’s a sudden awareness of what evangelical preachers are saying behind the guarded walls of their sanctuaries. They have been very clear about what they believe for the last couple of decades. They don’t need YouTube. They have their own publishing houses, radio broadcasts, and television stations. Their message has been heard regularly by millions.
I don’t agree with Rick Warren on many issues. I left the Southern Baptist church that he is a part of, but I know he’s a Christian, doing good work on most days. That said, I think the negative reaction is more from evangelical fatigue than from YouTube suddenly awakening us from our ignorance.
In the last decades, we’ve watched as our nation has become divided and our family dinner tables have become unpleasant, because the debates over abortion and homosexuality. Facebook “friends” write, “How can you call yourself a Christian and vote for Obama?” on our wall. We have listened to evangelicals whole-heartedly support President Bush, even when he has driven our nation into some horrendous ditches. The evangelicals have been calling for a culture war that has made us very, very tired. And so we shake our heads at the thought of continued evangelical influence.
As another Post article cites:
“It’s nice to see a conservative evangelical pastor play such a prominent role in such an important event,” said Tom Minnery, a senior vice president at Focus on the Family, which has fiercely criticized Obama over his support for abortion rights and other issues. “I think what it does is it underscores the importance of evangelicalism in the country.”
So the gesture will be spinned, not as Obama reaching out to a once-powerful, but now-slightly-wounded, religious movement, in order to build bridges of understanding. Rather, it will be seen as a sign of the importance of the Religious Right. Which just makes me tired.
The photo’s by digitalpotato
Although I’ve not been unaware of the backlash from the Religious Right, I seem to have been exposed to more of the backlash from abortion rights activists, who complain that Obama gave a role to Warren. One of the debates about the issue on one of the boards I frequent (which is populated more by unbelievers than believers) is the comparative lack of high-profile (and that bit is important) Christian leaders that could have been asked to pray for Obama that don’t oppose Obama on issues of same-sex equality.
My response there was that, although there are a few high profile leaders who are less “vehemently anti-gay rights” (a term from the conversation there. I cited Jim Wallis as an example), that’s beside the point. Obama is reaching out to those with whom he disagrees, and with whom those disagreements are public knowledge. He is doing so as a way of demonstrating how civilized discussions and friendships actually are possible with those with whom we disagree. That this is seen as so controversial by people both on the left and the right is merely a disheartening sign of how our world has become so quick to anger in recent times.
I can only hope that more posts like yours help to counteract that trend.
D’oh! That should have read “gay rights activists,” not “abortion rights activists”! I guess that goes to show how much those two issues pop up these days (another disheartening thing…).
I seem to error on the side of naiveté…my sense is that everyone from every side of this thing is simply making a huge mountain out of a molehill. We were all upset at how the political machine went after Jeremiah Wright, in fairness perhaps we should extend the same to Warren?
But really when it comes down to it…Warren hosted both McCain and Obama in a forum at the church, they struck up a bit of a friendship, Warren reviewed a chapter in Obama’s book, Obama extends a platform of a couple of minutes (if you can call a prayer a ‘platform’) to Warren at his inaguration.
Does it have to be any more complicated than that?
I have said it elsewhere, but I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiments expressed by Mark.
I’ve read this post, and the link to the Post several times now, and I’m still confused. You say that the selection of Warren is controversial among “so many religious leaders,” but all the news accounts I have read don’t say that. Even the Post article you link says, “Liberal groups and gay rights activists were outraged at the choice of Warren.”
Obama is not defending himself against conservative culture-warriors here. Ironically, he’s defending himself against liberal ones. But yet you say that it is the “evangelicals who are calling for a culture war that makes you very, very tired.” Why is it evangelicals who are exhausting you here? They’re not the ones shouting.
It may indeed be the case that conservative evangelicals are often strident and shrill in the public sphere. But in the case you site here, it is the opposite. I totally understand being tired of the culture wars. I am too. But here, its liberals who are lobbing the grenades.
What I see in this case is not just another example of the tiresome antics of the Religious Right, but a clear case of how liberals and progressives play the very same game.
Andy,
Here is a link to one of the first posts that made me aware of the evangelical furor. But as with this article, the article he cites focuses more on the liberal response than that of evangelicals to this particular incident. In fact, the very first comment there is very similar to yours, and Witherington responds by referencing a couple of televised news broadcasts.
I trust that Witherington isn’t making this up. But in any event, it certainly does seem that the media is far more focused on the protests from the left, though.
Carol–
I agree with you and with folks here who argue that the invocation is a prayer, and a willingness to dialogue, not a selling-out of either man (yes, evangelical bloggers are spokespeople are also upset, as witness
http://theconstructivecurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2008/12/rick-warren-and-barack-obama-again.html).
After eight years where our president refused to listen to opposing voices, I’m grateful for a president-elect who gathers people who can disagree on some issues but gather around others.
Obama has not sold out to the Religious Right–and the RR has not sold our to him. Thanks for this thoughtful post.
Interesting–thanks Mark and Greg. I guess if Carol had provided these two links instead of the two Wash Post articles, I wouldn’t have been confused. As it stands however, she has one link saying that liberals are upset with Obama, and another quote saying that the senior VP is pleased that Warren is involved. That evidence seems to me to point to the very opposite conclusion from the one she draws. That is, that here, it’s not just those pesky evangelicals again. I think the evidence here shows that in the culture wars–as in all wars–both sides are guilty of wrongdoing. And the best path to peace is to acknowledge where our side goes wrong.
I thought it was lame when conservatives jumped all over Obama for Jeremiah Wright, and I think it’s lame when liberals jump all over Obama for Rick Warren. Second verse, same as the first. I think that’s what’s noteworthy here–in the battle for social influence, conservatives and progressives use the same tactics.
(BTW, sorry, Carol, for speaking of you in the third person as though you’re not involved in the conversation.
should read: “…and another quote saying that the senior VP of Focus on the Family is pleased that Warren is involved…”
First I echo Jim’s point about Wright. From the left the immediate response was that the right was committing character assassination and guilt by association. Equal regard should apply here.
Second, I suspect that because Obama has a more liberal political disposition, that many confuse it with his theological disposition. The fact is that he and Warren agree that marriage is defined as a man and woman. Obama’s position is that he wants that legislated on the state level and that it should not be a federally mandated stricture (e.g. DOMA repeal).
Third, and I’ll just pop it over from my blog…I think a better question is why in the world we think it is at all OK to have invocations and benedictions by religious persons at state-sponsored assemblies? Surely all religious voices have an equal opportunity to give voice and be represented here. It would seem better not to have religious representation at all at these ceremonies and other government rituals. This includes the presence of the Bible to legitimate oaths which itself has a sort of irony to it. I think that should be the more fundamental question here, not who actually participates.
[...] is tired of the culture wars. And aren’t we all deep [...]
Jim said, “I seem to error on the side of naiveté…my sense is that everyone from every side of this thing is simply making a huge mountain out of a molehill. ”
Yeah. We probably are. It’s just that the Inauguration is a few blocks away from my church, so it’s definitely part of my ministry context… and fun to ruminate about!
That said, Warren did equate same-sex marriage to incest, pedophilia, and polygamy, so I can understand why people are upset.
Andy said,
Point taken. I’m probably not exhausted by liberals because (1) I am one and (2) the religious left is a far-from-robust movement.
I have been to fund-raising events and LGBT advocacy meetings within the denomination, and they usually add up to a wonderful handful of grandmothers, planning teas and wondering how we can educate people.
We have a teeny, tiny little bit of pull in our denominations, but that’s about our limit. Sometimes, if we’re getting really ambitious, we’ll talk about getting one of our own on a Presbytery nominating committee.
When I compare that to the Religious Right discussions in which I grew up, there’s a big difference. They were talking to Newt Gingrich about how to take over Senate and The House of Representatives!
I don’t see the culture war as a war between the religious right and the religious left. I see it as the religious right against everyone else.
Anyone care to disagree?
Drew said, “I think a better question is why in the world we think it is at all OK to have invocations and benedictions by religious persons at state-sponsored assemblies?”
Good question.
Carol, great post – I just finished my own post on this last night at http://www.EmergingChristian.com.
You said:
“I think the negative reaction is more from evangelical fatigue than from YouTube suddenly awakening us from our ignorance.”
Really well put. And I am fatigued. But these certainly haven’t been “hidden beliefs” by any means.
Mark Baker-Wright, your accidental replacement of “homosexual” with “abortion” killed me because I was right there with you – knew exactly what you had done, and I’m guilty of it myself. Even left-leaning Christians tend to think in those two litmus-test terms because they have been so prominently (and aggressively) forced in front of all of us.
I am very grateful you posted this, Carol. I have been in conversation with a few of my liberal UCC friends who are in an outrage – talking about betrayal and disappointment – when Obama has not yet been sworn in! Moreover, my liberal colleagues are quick to point out times when they are not welcome to the table, but also equally quick to keep the door shut against those who they don’t agree with ideologically. I have blogged about this too. I think this represents the road less traveled, yes?
Great post. I would encourage liberal Christians such as yourselves, (I myself am a liberal politically and post-evangelical theologically), to continue to have patience as many younger evangelicals are also tired of culture wars. I think that an even slightly enlivened mainline will be able to house those moderate evangelicals who are going to come into tension with their fundamentalist leadership. It’s why I am now Episcopalian!
RJ, you’re definitely correct. As I have come into liberal circles I find the same hard-core biggotry from the opposite side….sigh. The problem is, conversation is also exhausting.
adhunt wrote, “I think that an even slightly enlivened mainline will be able to house those moderate evangelicals who are going to come into tension with their fundamentalist leadership.”
You are so right. I went from evangelicalism to Presbyterian, and that was a lot of my motivation for writing my book. I saw the trend with my friends all around me.
Here’s a whole different response: I wish he had chosen a black preacher, just because the black church has its own history/milieu which ought to be honored, and what an opportunity.
I am a liberal clergy person who didn’t like this selection. But Obama said he would bring everyone to the table. He can’t do that by having a cabinet and swearing-in ceremony that looks like the left wing of the democratic party. If we support his vision of bringing everyone to the table, then we better get used to sitting next to people who make us very uncomfortable. Obama is simply doing what he said he would do.
A prediction: The day after the swearing in ceremony, we won’t be talking about Rick Warren. We’ll be talking about the most diverse group of citizens to ever come to Washington to witness an inauguration.
Thank you for this post. I’ve been trying to explain to a friend of mine the past few days why this move disappoints me. My friend just didn’t seem to understand that I see this as a wasted moment; that Obama had an opportunity to publicly show a different face to Christianity and passed on it. That Obama could’ve had someone else who more closely represents his beliefs give this very public religious message, but chose not to. And, also, that this is just going to be seen as an example of the influence of Evangelical Christians in the upcoming administration. It just disappoints me that we’re just getting “more of the same” in the public representation of Christianity when there was this first opportunity to bring new voices out. Because of your post, I have a name for it: Evangelical Fatigue. Thanks!
Speaking of fatigue, I’m more than a little tired of seeing the word “evangelical” used as though it only applies to people on the right wing. The word’s worth saving for those of us who are more progressive, too, and I’m not willing to let go of it just yet.
Mark: I’m focused on saving the term “Christian” for now. Adjectives can come later…
Oh yes. I do tend to talk about evangelicals in the culturally narrow, popular sense, rather than the broader, historical sense.
(I just got finished reading Crazy For God, so I’m certainly in that mindset…)
But (we were having this discussion on twitter) what’s the verdict here? Do you think that the word “evangelical” can have a meaning beyond the culturally narrow sense now? I could not claim the label for myself, but what do you think? Is it possible that the word could be saved?
Do I think that the word “evangelical” can have a meaning beyond the culturally narrow sense now? Honestly, I think the most recent election’s given me more hope that it’s possible than I’ve had in a long time.
Having read your comments on Twitter (and parts of your book where you detail some of why), I can certainly understand a desire not to use the label for one’s self (although I’m certainly saddened by that). I just continue to push for the right to continue to use it for myself despite (I hope!) not falling into most of those categories you’re trying to avoid!
And, Andrew, not to sound too mean, but I honestly don’t see the word “Christian” as a word that needs “saving.” I do see folks with bad (and often wrong) ideas about Christians that I try to correct when possible, which in many ways is the same as what’s happening with “evangelicals,” and why I assume you make the comment, but the baggage is of such a different kind that I just don’t think the comparison is a fair one. I don’t see actual Christians running from the label (even if they privately use it for themselves–not quite the same as what Carol’s doing) the way I see evangelicals doing.
Yeah, this has a lot to do with it too. With my background, I am really happy that I still have some faith. Leaving evangelicalism helped me to retain it.
Which… brings me to another reason why I had to leave the movement.
Evangelicalism tends to stress the importance of an individual’s decision, and it became apparent to me that if I had to make the decision, then my faith was going to be very fragile. I have a lot more peace realizing that it’s God who has chosen, draws me in, and holds me. When I doubt, when I struggle, I don’t worry about losing my faith (or wondering if I really had any in the first place), because it’s not solely dependent on me. I’m part of a community that can support me. The fact that abundant life is not dependent on my personal decision is extremely comforting.
Ryan’s also sorting this out here.
I don’t think that the word Evangelical can be saved from its cultural context or inside the church by a scattered few moderates. I am encouraged by them (as I was when I was an evangelical), but they do not hold the power and money in that institution. They are far less in number than there much more conservative brothers. Plus, many of those moderates still have too many of the vestigial tails of fundamentalism to be open and accepting of those of us who are unabashedly liberal (believing in biblical unity, blood atonement, dispensational eschatology, individual salvation, limiting views on women, limiting views on homosexuality, using the poor for emergent/church evangelism and the reliance on charismatic leaders with the illusion of democratic rule). So, I am weary of the possibility for them changing the definition of evangelicalism in the public forum or amongst the religious community at large.
Honestly, no, I do not think that the term “Evangelical” can be saved. I used to be a member of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), and I remember the reaction I would get from friends unfamiliar with the church when I would tell them the full name of the church. Usually, I had to explain “no, not THAT kind of Evangelical,” and then give an explanation of what the term “Evangelical” really means. This term now implies something completely different than its original meaning, especially in the mind of the general, unchurched public.
More and more frequently, this is the same kind of explanation I have to give when I tell unchurched friends that I am a Christian: “no, not THAT kind of Christian.” I think this might have something to do with the geographic area in which I live as well. I live in a part of the Midwest where conservative, Evangelical, and/or Fundamentalist churches have a stronghold on the term “Christian” (a televangelist of a local conservative, Evangelical megachurch gets all the local “Christian” news/opinion coverage in the local media outlets). So, I have to regularly explain my beliefs and the beliefs of my Presbyterian congregation. This is very similar to the situation Eric Elnes described in his book _The Phoenix Affirmations_, with the church member who always said she was a “Christian BUT” — she was a Christian, BUT not THAT kind of Christian. So, with all due respect to Mark, yes, in my experience the term “Christian” does need saving, especially here in my part of the Midwest.
Clearly, I’m outnumbered here, and for me to push back too hard against the stories and reasons given here would be, I fear, to diminish them, and I certainly have no desire to do that.
So I’ll just close out my involvement on this topic by nothing that, although moderates-to-liberals who consider themselves “evangelical”–its baggage notwithstanding–may well be a minority, I’ve seen growth within that minority in the past few years alone. This gives me hope.
I simply feel that “evangelical” is too strong a biblical word, containing much within it that I still (personally) find good and meaningful, for me to simply abandon it to those who I feel do great damage not only to the term “evangelical,” but to the reputation of Christianity itself. (And, indeed, Andrew, I do have much the same experience you cite in your latest post, regarding both terms, my previous statement that the term “Christian” doesn’t need saving notwithstanding.)
Mark, I am with you completely. I have found “post-evangelical” a useful term to describe my foundational epistomology and its impact on our doctrine; but Evangelical is a potent word and I do not wish it to be lost on myself. When differentiating I try to use “conservative” or “fundamentalist” (which can be overly negative, so I try to use it sparingly for Dobson and his ilk) or call myself a “moderate” or “classical” Evangelical.
Perhaps we cannot use the word constructively because the church has long been divided in the west between “conservative” and “liberal.” And we have all been guilty of doing church in a vaccum.
There are certainly many, many things that I’ve learned from my evangelical education and value in the culture (i.e., they’re MUCH better with children, more willing to adapt in order to reach out to more people, and they tend to be much less classist).
And, I bet you’re right. There will be the conservative evangelical institutions (they have so much money and power, they’re not going away soon), but hopefully there will be a shift back to the moderate/socially progressive historic roots.
Things do seem to be shifting!
E.J. Dionne wrote an interesting Op-Ed here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/22/AR2008122201847.html?hpid=opinionsbox1.