David Batstone is the executive editor of Sojourners, an evangelical Christian magazine with a history of pro-life, pro-human-rights, antipoverty and antiviolence activism rooted in the Bible. (Disclosure: I worked for Sojourners in the late 1980s.)
When he’s not on tour speaking on faith and culture, Batstone writes a regular newsletter distributed via e-mail. In May, he answered the title question of this XGW entry, in response to angry mail from a dispensationalist.
I often hear non-Christians ask: How can a person who identifies with Jesus Christ espouse actions that run so counter to peace and justice? This theological device [the mail writer’s dispensationalism] enables many Christians to discount the teachings of Jesus as a guide for living their lives. Forgive your enemies? Feed the hungry? Clothe the naked and care for the prisoner? [Speaking tongue-in-cheek:] Not a chance; you’d be foolish to adopt these practices in the dispensation in which we live. Governments must take whatever measures are necessary to defeat evil, and we are commanded to be its loyal subjects.
The May article offers a succinct explanation of one particular religious-right trend threatening traditional, gospels-oriented Christianity — and religious freedom.
Sojourners co-founder and editor-in-chief Jim Wallis similarly identifies moral myopia and political corruption in the religious right when he discusses a debate he had with Jerry Falwell on NPR’s Tavis Smiley show. On the show, Wallis raised a broad spectrum of Christian moral concerns; Falwell, on the other hand, angrily demanded that Christians practice moral tunnelvision.
In a July article, Sojourners assesses the religious right’s acquisition of veto power over Republican Party initiatives and its use of George W. Bush to gain seats on the U.S. Supreme Court.
My selection of items is not, however, an indication that Sojourners obsesses over the religious right. In February the magazine examined why "liberal" Christians might need evangelicals — and vice versa. The same issue offered an upbeat February interview with popular Christian author, Philip Yancey, whose values — like those of Sojourners — thwart political stereotypes.
I have seen a number of posts containing comments from conservative christians suggesting that liberals or gays cannot be christian. Whenever I see a post like that I pose two questions to the poster. First, who died and left it for him (the poster) to determine who is or is not a christian? And second, what makes him believe that he controls the “CHRISTIAN”(R) trademark?
Raj:
I agree, it seems awfully presumptuous for another ‘mere mortal’ to be the final arbiter of who is and isn’t allowed to be a Christian. Arguing with them won’t help. It’s part of the fundamentalist mind-set that they are not only right, but they KNOW they are right, and BECAUSE they are right there can therefor be no other alternatives. Once in a while a few do wake up, but it seems to be few and far between, sadly. All you can do sometimes is just shake your head in pity, tell them “Well, you’re entitled to your opinion,” and walk away. They don’t want intellectual or civil discussion, and gawd forbid they should have a learning experience from someone who isn’t *their* kind of Christian. They’d rather be *right* than anything else.
In Yancey’s book What’s So Amazing About Grace he effectively exhorted other evangelicals to not be so hateful concerning President Clinton. This message resonated with moderate evangelicals. I believe one of the reasons there was a fairly large percentage of support for Clinton is that moderates evangelicals did not appreciate the invective against him by the Religious Right.
Now, the shoe is on the other foot. I am truly taken aback by the seething anger against President Bush. The net result will push the moderate evangelicals like myself even more heavily into Bush’s column. Kerry having a (now ex-) outreach director who supported removing under God causes moderates to wonder whether the persecution is not merely limited to the President but to all those of faith. It was this dynamic that caused McCain to fail to get the nomination in 2000. While there may not be full agreement with the Religious Right, attacking them will cause a “circle the wagons” effect on the moderates.
The way to appeal to moderate evangelicals is to take the approach done in Alabama concerning tax increases. Convince us that it is in the Bible and we will respond positively. Name calling or siding with the secularists will cause us to align with the Religious Right. In Carville’s book, Fighting Back he has a chapter on the Alabama experience but he fails to learn the right lesson. Namely, you don’t beat someone to the “correct” answer, you inspire them. The error arises by the failure to distinguish between the moderates and the Religious Right and why we sometimes align. Wallis appears to be making the same mistake. By using the “taking back” language he puts this all in fighting terms which really turns us moderates off.
On a slightly different note, I happened to attend a stump speech by the President (by ticket only — my parents are Republicans) in St. Charles Missouri just prior to the primary. So, this was a “red meat” speech. There was NO mention of gay marriage (even though there was a gay marriage amendment on the ballot) but there was mention of going after corrupt CEOs and the importance of being a “good neighbor” and helping out those in need.
The main problem with Rich’s Alabama tax example is that the measure was defeated by a wide margin.
The Prez is treading a fine line between giving red meat to his supporters and appearing mean-spirited to the swing voter and the press which attends even the red meat speeches. The RNC speakers lineup for television is non-representative of the elected party members’ positions on hot-button “morals” issues. Giuliani and Schwarzenneger are pro-choice and are not actively sponsoring anti-gay legislation – that puts them in the distinct minority. Falwell and Robertson have been snubbed.
Rich: Regarding the seperation of church and state. I don’t know the position in the US, but in most commonwealth countries like New Zealand and Australia, God and the Church of England are generously sprinkled through the constitution and laws. The world hasn’t come to an end even though the official religion of the country is the Church of England; for example, the parliament opens each day with the speaker of the house saying the Lords prayer (Our Father)
Hence the the reason why I never have been able to understand the whole dust storm the US make about the seperation. We’ve seen that even WITH this close marriage between church and state, New Zealand has been able to legalise abortion, decriminalise sex between members of the same sex, move forward with same sex/opposite sex civil unions etc. etc.