Am I Part of the Religious Right?
I was sitting in a class the other day, and the professor started bashing the Religious Right. He claimed that they were blinded by the "Constantinian Temptation," to put the full force of the state behind the Church. He made the argument that when we overlap the state and the church, disastrous things happen. Without getting into examples, I completely agree, and I think that independent, robust religious institutions and civil society bolster the state, as does a state that emphasizes the necessity of freedom of religion.
As my professor railed on the Religious Right, I began to get defensive. I'm a committed evangelical Christian, and an ardent Conservative. Surely, I'm a Conservative largely because of my religious convictions (I was borderline socialist before I gave my life to Christ). Though I am very religious, and very much on the political right, I have never been blinded by this Constantinian temptation, or so I think. Hence, I need to determine if the religious right really desires to Christian-ize the government and that will determine if I am a part of the religious right.
First, I decided that there were certain political values that I was committed to, independent of (though obviously shaped by) my Christian values. I believe in the free-market and limited government. I believe, in a more traditional conservative sense, that we should not radically change institutions based on the value of tradition and the uncertainty of the future. I believe in the authority and limitations of the constitution. If you'd like to discuss each of these, I would be happy to - including biblical support for each of these ideas. I can argue for each of them from a sacred or secular point of view, and I therefore think that these beliefs are not contingent on my religiosity.
So, what defines the religious right? Is it defined by being a Christian as well as being a conservative? Or, is it being conservative ONLY because you are a Christian? I am starting to think that the latter is true, and I'll give you two reasons: Pat Robertson and James Dobson.
First of all, there's a great post over at this blog called "We're Not Israel". Read it. I would love to explain the argument, but he says it better than I could. Pat Robertson does not advocate my political position.
Secondly, we have James Dobson. Now, James Dobson is nothing like Pat Robertson. I like James Dobson. But he needs to understand the influence he has and act far more responsibly. You wouldn't believe how highly Christians view Dobson's opinions - too highly in my opinion. Sometimes, he is wrong. One example, among many, is his support for Harriet Miers. He did so because she is an evangelical Christian - not because she was the best choice for the Supreme Court.
These two guys are examples of what my professor was talking about. Blinded by their faith rather than guided by it (sometimes!), they influence politics in negative ways. If they are the Religious Right, I do not want to be. Not because they don't say things and advocate policies that I agree with, because they often do (well, Dobson more than Robertson), but because their political disposition is inherently flawed.
So, my professor was correct. Crazy religious right. Be religious... Be conservative. But do not call yourself part of the religious right.
posted by Barnabas18 @ 7:31 PM
5 comments
5 Comments:
Gordon Rocks (that was him, right?)
I'll try to post more later - we're going to see Harry Potter.
I think your professor was talking more about how some Christians (which are called the Religious Right) are interested in/lobbying for things like no gay marriages, no abortions, allowing prayer in school... most nonChristians consider those of us who stand for those kinds of things as pushing our "religious" beliefs on others. Most individuals who are against the so-called religious rights aren't really sure why they're against it.
I personally believe that you can't legislate morality and you shouldn't legislate faith. But, it seems our system has gone anti-faith up until recently. I believe we should educate the masses, love the masses (and Jesus's entire message & sacrifice was based on love, yes?), and that will effect change far better than legislation ever could.
Anonymous... I complete agree that the church effects lives far better than any legislation could ever do. I appreciate your analysis of who the professor is speaking of when he talks about the religious right. So, I have some questions for you...
1. Does this mean that I'm part of the religious right, because I am pro-life and seek pro-life legislation? What about because I'm against homosexual marriage (though I'm against it for secular, not religious reasons, in fact this will be my next post!)
2. Because the church is the most effective way of changing lives, what role should the state play? I think it has a role, an extremely limited role as a mediator. But I think there are interesting nuances here between a conservative and a libertarian, and I fall on the conservative side. If I believe abortion is murder, I do believe that we should legislate against it. I'd love to hear your thoughts.
Red... yes, it was Gordon. Sometimes he rocks, sometimes he doesn't. I happen to agree with his assessment of the religious right, after thinking about it. But I disagree with him on many political issues. Thanks for the comment, and I hope that you enjoy Harry Potter. I'm sure you'll post something on your blog about it, though I'd rather read something about theology, but oh well.
I'll post about whatever I freakin' want. Gosh.
I think your summary of the religious right is good. I think the religious right also includes Bob Jones et. al., who sent letters to the President saying that during his second term it was his moral duty to see that Christian morality was made into law through the white house, though their wording was slightly different.
While I think it's equally important that everyone be given opportunity to believe what they'd like, I personally believe the message of Christ is in stark contradiction with many, but not all, of the efforts of the RR. I think it's important that Christians begin making a name for themselves as people who love first and lobby second....political issues shouldn't be used as a litmus test for one's faith, and the church should never prostitute itself as a platform for politics. We can discuss morality and the right and biblical way to live, and these principals can certainly be the guidance for our laws. But these things have been abused, and the name of Christ taken in vain for by every politician looking to cash in on the largest voting block in the country: evangelical middle america.
Amen brother. I think your language is somewhat strong with the church prostituting itself, but I think it proves a very valid point. We see political victories as somehow winning our country for Christ, though it wouldn't change the hearts of the masses. What is heartening is that appealing to evangelical middle-America is an effective strategy...which shows, in my opinion, that the church is more vibrant than we sometimes think. Perhaps what we see in the media, in the movies, and so on doesn't truly reflect the people of this country. I don't know, just a thought.
Post a Comment
<< Home