Rethinking evangelicalism in public square

I'm dismayed by several answers of David Wells in this interview. First of all, he intimates that some of those in the 'Bible Belt' are Evangelicas only because of their having been born into Evangelical families, as if this does not occur in Northeaster families, or other denominations.

Secondly, he states that "Biblical faith really should be producing moral authenticity and integrity..." Who could disagree with that, but it implies that Christianity (and other religions, for that matter) is ONLY about morality, orthopraxis, and not about fidelity to the doctrine taught by Jesus and the apostles. This is a typically New England belief, one which has degenerated into agnosticism and even atheism. In the long run, orthopraxis without orthodoxy becomes mere humanism, without any transcendent reference to God.

Thirdly, the response "I believe that older alliances between the Republican Party and various segments of the evangelical world are a lot weaker now. And I do think that what you have, especially amongst younger people, is a yearning for what is real and authentic and a deep distaste for what is hypocritical, and they find an awful lot of conventional political life to be phony and fabricated and manipulative[,] taken into context of consecutive sentences, implies that being a Republican, or a conservative Evangelical, is "hypocritial, ...phony and fabricated," a thought which is awfully judgmental from Professor Wells.

For gaudete, I have a 25 year old son who has a deep distate for hypocritical, phony, fabricated and manipulative political life...and I am proud of him for that. He sees some aspects of life for what they are...hypocritical, phony, fabricated and manipulative and I don't believe he or any other person should be labeled judgemental for ttheir insights.

It is good to see you again gaudete, though I hope your rapier is as sharp as ever.
You know me, I thik that in resposne to your second point, culture moving away from religion, moving away from mythology, toward something real, provable and knowable now in a way it wasn't 2 or 3 or 4 thousand years ago constitutes real societal progress. I believe that a humanistic approach based on facts and reason is progress compared to one based in fears based in ignorance. Remember, the earth is the center of the universe, if you sail too far you will fall off the edge and monsters will get you.

I am also thrilled that the alliance between the Republican Party and the evangelical world is weakening. One of the worst things that happened to that party was the 80s when Reagan sold the party to the so-called "Moral Majority." The Republicans claim to be the more religious party, etc, but... do the least for the people, protecting the military industrial complex, big finance, big oil, big business, at the expense of the rest of the world. Is this the legacy of the Party that Lincoln built? Evangelicalism, along with the rest of Christianity, needs to just wither on the vine. Religous extremism causes so much pain and injury through the world... it is criminal.

Posted by gaudete October 13, 09 05:21 PM

To begin with, gaudete, the concept of a "degeneration into agnostocism and even atheism" is as hubristic as it comes. Atheism and agnosticism are as valid as Christianity. Like it or not, it's all opinion. Orthodoxy has been shown throughout history to be utterly anathema to the overall human condition, as evidenced by the carnage wrought by those who have demanded for themselves that form of worship from others. And on earth, there is no such thing as "mere humanism". Humanism itself is a truly worthy philosophy in that it is a constructive means of advancing the human condition. The insistence on orthodoxy almost always degenerates into the mass shedding of innocent blood.

And, while you may disagree, an alliance between self-professed Christians and modern Republicans is, by its very nature, an exercise in rank hypocrisy. The Republican Party has a long history of racism, sexism, elevation of the rich and powerful, and contempt for the poor, as evidenced in its political campaigns and its public policy. The "religious right" is little different from the very Sadducees who demanded the execution of the rebel against orthodoxy, Jesus of Nazareth.

Ontheleft,

I agree with you that religion should not be completely allied with either the republican party, for neither completely embody God's kingdom which we desire at least to begin here on earth. However, on most issues, i find it is the one with the more conservative policies which comes closer to the religious vision, of course not always, so that usually means on a practical level holding one's nose and voting for the less imperfect repub. Besides abortion, which for me is the most fundamental issue, in general conservatives want to 'conserve' the Judaeo-Christian' values on which this country was built (along with the enlightenment values on which our fedgov was formed) but both your remark's and Kai's would eliminate that foundation, leaving the present shaky, degenerate anti-culture.

You write: "The Republican Party has a long history of racism, sexism, elevation of the rich and powerful, and contempt for the poor. . ." Racism, life Abraham Lincoln, who freed the slaves, and the several decades that followed, of strong enforcement of black voting rights? Or Eisenhower calling out the troops at Little Rock? Or George HW Bush nominating Clarence Thomas to the scotus, and advancing Colin Powell's career?
Or GW Bush naming C. Rice the first female secretary of State? Or Michael Steele, the Chairman of the Republican party?

Sexism: Sandra Day O'Connor and C. Rice.

Contempt for the poor: it is an established fact that in general, republicans and evangelicas give a higher proportion of their income to charity that libers, democrats, like Biden and Kerry, those tightwads,
who barely give 1% of their largesse. Conservatives do want to help the poor, but through helping them to get life sustaining, self esteem building jobs, rather than becoming wards of the nanny state.

Elevation of rich and powerful: both parties do that, and it has been true since the beginning of the nation, e.g., FDR, the Kennedy, the Kerry/Heinz fortune, Sen. Jay Rockefeller, Gov.Corzine of NJ, all backed by the billionaire George Soros.

Kai,

Thank you for your welcome back. I had kind of took a mental health break from blogging and internet in general--you probably think i need more like a year.

Your write:"...culture moving away from religion, moving away from mythology, toward something real, provable and knowable now in a way it wasn't 2 or 3 or 4 thousand years ago constitutes real societal progress. I believe that a humanistic approach based on facts and reason is progress compared to one based in fears based in ignorance."

First, the only culture moving away from religion is the west european/bicoastal United States. In all other cultures, there has been a
resurgence of religion. europe's culture is noted for it's despondency, thus all the suicides and assisted suicides. So many believing in nothing, that Islam has been filling the void, unfortunately in my book.

The heart of evangelicalism is the evangel, the good news, part of which is that God is love, so human beings should be loving toward one another.
This religious platform was the foundation of the secularized values of the enlightenment, epitomized by liberte, egalite, fraternity. The question is, once a culture intentionally cuts itself off from its roots, its tradition, how does that culture replenish itself? It is now running on the fumes of christendom long past.

Obviously science has brought us many good advances, and at least the
Catholic version of Christianity is all for this, that contemporary science is but a tool in the hands of those God created, and given the mission to be-cocreators, to be stewards of the earth. Tools are neutral, they can be used for good or ill. The problem is, unfettered science is like unfettered capitalism, it has no internal mechanism of 'thus far, and no farther.' Science has brought us nuclear weapons, and interference in the human
genome which threatens the unique nature of our species.

Plus, you too apparently subscribe to a mythology, the mythology of scientism. Not science, because as i said, that can be fine, but scientism, the belief that science is all that there is, the only thing that is factual, nothing else is. The problem is that this is an unprovable assertion, a belief, an opinion. A true scientist only speak of what
he or she has weighed, measure, counted, experimented on, and maintains a humble silence about everything else. Besides, most of the founders of science were sincere Christian believers, Newton, Boyle, Galileo, but i guess you're smarter than them. And note that experimental science grew on the soil of europe, Christianity, because Judaeo-Christianity had banished the belief that there was a god in every tree, rock, etc., so it was ok to experiment on them. But again, europe and
coastal US are ungrateful to their cultural predecessors, as if science were not a slow process of micro discoveries over the course of centuries.

Gaudete,

For starters, the country was not founded on Judaeo-Christian principles. It was founded on Enlightenment principles, which were a truly humanitarian reaction to the religious bloodletting of Europe. Many of the founders were Deists, not Christians, and given Christianity's centuries-long oppression of the Jews, the whole idea of "Judaeo-Christian principles" is a bit odd for that time period.

As for the GOP, they remain at this moment the party of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Michael Savage, Ann Coulter, the Tea Baggers, David Duke, Lee Atwater, Karl Rove, the Southern Strategy (a logical extension of their opposition to civil rights), Reagan's fictitious "welfare queen", Jesse Helms, Jeff Sessions, Joe Wilson of SC, and I could go on. As for Clarence Thomas, few people have ever been less qualified by intellect for SCOTUS than Justice Thomas. His two decades on the court have served as a constant reminder of this. And Michael Steele is as much a joke as is Thomas. I would further suggest that neither Abraham Lincoln nor Dwight Eisenhower could win a GOP nomination in this day and age.

As for sexism, the GOP's belief that men should control female reproduction speaks for itself.

And the demand that the government cater to the rich and powerful, whether personal or corporate, with contempt for, and at the expense of the poor, the middle class, and workers here and abroad has been a staple of Republicanism and conservatism for most of the last 130 years. Yes, the Democratic Party has also been guilty in that regard, but exaltation of the wealthy is among the GOP's very reasons for existence. It's what the Reagan and Bush tax cuts were all about.

By the way, I'm a bit curious about the George Soros reference. What is it that makes people on the right froth at the mouth about him? That, unlike Murdoch, he's not a rabid right winger? Just curious, since you brought him up.

Ontheleft,

You write: "For starters, the country was not founded on Judaeo-Christian principles. It was founded on Enlightenment principles, which were a truly humanitarian reaction to the religious bloodletting of Europe. Many of the founders were Deists, not Christians, and given Christianity's centuries-long oppression of the Jews, the whole idea of "Judaeo-Christian principles" is a bit odd for that time period. "

You confuse the nation with the country. The country was founded in 1620, not far from here, you may have heard about it. The country existed 167 years before the national government in 1787. Virtually all of those colonial settlers were Christians, and the Puritans heavily emphasized the Hebrew Scriptures, hence the Judaeo-Christian ethic. If someone only had one book, it was the Bible. That is where they learned their "thou shalt not kill, not steal," etc., not from John Locke or Voltaire. Yes, there is a fair amount of enlightenment principles in the Declaration and Constitution, but only a thin veneer of the big named Founders were enlightenment Deists. And remember, the Constitution they wrote had to be ratified by the people in the states, the small minority of whom read Locke and co. As someone has said, the US is like India (religious) ruled by the Swedes (contempo agnostic secularists.) But the enlightenment and Christian strands held together for about 150 years just fine, until
the scotus et al began to favor an aburdly exaggerated enlightenment strand, and try to stamp out [from the public square, as the original interview was about] the religious strand. Previously, they had worked in harmony, and the govt had a positive neutrality between all the denominations.

On the left,

As far as Soros goes, I think it is the surreptitious way he funds these seemingly innocuously named groups, which are really far left fronts, that bugs me, but granted, there are also the same on the right, although i wouldn't count Murdoch as one, since his efforts, Fox etc., are in perfectly plain sight.

You wrote: "As for the GOP, they remain at this moment the party of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Michael Savage, Ann Coulter, the Tea Baggers, David Duke, Lee Atwater, Karl Rove, the Southern Strategy (a logical extension of their opposition to civil rights), Reagan's fictitious "welfare queen", Jesse Helms, Jeff Sessions, Joe Wilson of SC,..."

I and virtually all conservatives completely reject David Duke. What's the matter with Joe Wilson except one boorish shout? Why Jeff Sessions? did i miss something. I personally loathe Glenn Beck, or at least his show, it's a caricature of itself. Ann Coulter goes too far, but once in a while she cranks out a wickedly funny line. I'm finding Karl Rove a more interesting, well written columnist than he was political operative, but how is he different from James Carville or David Axelrod? The point is, all these are well known folks, but they are totally unrepresentative of the average republican or conservative. Most are just average Joe or Jill Sixpacks
trying to keep a roof over their heads.

And as far as catering to the rich and powerful being a republican staple, you must have a low opinion of the American masses who themselves are not rich, but have often voted republican, that they are easily duped. This attitude i call condescension. The ones catering to the rich and famous now are the democrats, with a 95% approval rating in Hollywood.

Gaudete, there's nothing surreptitious about Soros. He's certainly honest, in contrast to Murdoch's claims that his media empire in this country is anything other that the propaganda arm for the Republican Party. How else would you explain Fox's labeling of Mark Foley, Ted Stevens and Mark Sanford as Democrats? And that's not even the tip of the iceberg of the dishonesty that emanates from Fox.

As for the conservative rejection of David Duke, that simply is not the case. They may reject Mr. Duke per se, but they have embraced his racism for nearly a half century. There are many conservatives, including the likes of Joe Wilson, who are furious that a black man is President of the United States, and this racism is readily apparent in the comments from the well-known and the anonymous alike. As for Sessions, his past includes attacking the NAACP and ACLU as "un-American" for "forc[ing] civil rights down the throats of the American people", calling an African American lawyer "boy" and calling a white attorney litigating civil rights cases "a traitor to his race". That, my friend, is racism. As for Rove, as a disciple of Lee Atwater, he took Atwater's techniques even further in his whispering campaign in SC in 2000 against John McCain - you remember the alleged "illegitimate black child" bit, I trust. Sadly, Gaudete, these people are far too representative of far too many Republicans and conservatives.

As for the "duping" of the American electorate, frankly, the Southern Strategy has been about precisely that. Blame blacks (or women or gays or Latinos or...pick someone, anyone) for the miserable existences of enough people and you can win elections with the votes of the very people whose pockets you're picking. The GOP has understood this remarkable bit of cynicism for decades. It's not condescension. It is, however, immoral. And I don't think I referenced the rich and famous so much as the rich and powerful and corporate. Hollywood has far less effect on people than do the corporations that employ them, deny them health insurance when they need it, and generally buy the government officials who send their sons and daughters to die for corporate interests. But, the GOP has in fact, gotten many Americans to vote for them and against their own interests. Divide and conquer.

By the way, apparently I'm not the only one who's taken a bit of the warm weather off from blogs, etc.? Welcome back.

Taking into consideration the fact that there is no god, this is a very disturbing conversation. Religion and morality are not mutually exclusive. As evidenced by, oh, almost every religion throughout all of history. I look forward to the day when the "evangelical" movement dies out. It's a mob rule mentality. Do you feel doubt about your beliefs if you cannot somehow brainwash others into believing what you believe? Rather pathetic. Check out: Phil Zuckerman’s Society Without God: What The Least Religious Nations Can Tell Us About Contentment.