bleeding-heart conservatives
Nicholas Kristof in the New York Times on why liberals should seek consensus with "bleeding-heart conservatives"... (hat tip: Linda Christiansen)
At a New York or Los Angeles cocktail party, few would dare make a pejorative comment about Barack Obama's race or Hillary Clinton's sex. Yet it would be easy to get away with deriding Mike Huckabee's religious faith.
Liberals believe deeply in tolerance and over the last century have led the battles against prejudices of all kinds, but we have a blind spot about Christian evangelicals. They constitute one of the few minorities that, on the American coasts or university campuses, it remains fashionable to mock.
I think it's important to note that there are significant differences in the treatment of faith among East-Coast elites and those, for example, in the Midwest.
Scorning people for their faith is intrinsically repugnant, and in this case it also betrays a profound misunderstanding of how far evangelicals have moved over the last decade. Today, conservative Christian churches do superb work on poverty, AIDS, sex trafficking, climate change, prison abuses, malaria and genocide in Darfur.
Bleeding-heart liberals could accomplish far more if they reached out to build common cause with bleeding-heart conservatives. And the Democratic presidential candidate (particularly if it's Mr. Obama, to whom evangelicals have been startlingly receptive) has a real chance this year of winning large numbers of evangelical voters.
I think he may be correct about the possibility for consensus on some things. But I doubt that he's correct on Obama. At least for now-- and hopefully into the future-- Christian emphasis on the pro-life position will not fade and they will not increase their faith in government much more on economic issues.
posted by Eric Schansberg @ 11:30 PM
5 Comments
5 Comments:
I think some of the liberals' animosity to evangelicals is a reaction to the intolerance of some evangelicals, in particular to gay people. They observe that evangelicals teach, contrary to mainstream medical science, that homosexuality is unhealthy and wrong. But there is a difference between a religious belief that homosexuality is wrong and intolerance of gay people: many evangelical leaders (and evangelical members of the public) are very tolerant of gay people. (There might be a particle of cognitive dissonance there; but evangelicals, as everyone else, have friends, colleagues and family members who are gay.)
But one particular source of liberal anger against evangelicals is the calculated use of anti-gay sentiment for political purposes by certain evangelical leaders or groups. I regret to say that Southeast Christian Church has a history of exactly this. I am referring to the 2004 election. In that election, there was a ballot measure in Kentucky to amend the state constitution to prevent the legal recognition of same-sex marriages. This measure, and similar measures in various states, were part of a Republican strategy to bring out the conservative vote in a close presidential election. Southeast Christian Church made several contributions to this effort: Promoting the James Dobson book Marriage Under Fire (which portrayed same-sex marriage as a threat to morality and the country); hosting a video webcast featuring prominent leaders of the anti-gay marriage campaign; putting up billboards in the Louisville area saying "God's Plan for Marriage: One Man One Woman"; and having a three-sermon series on marriage that October. Now I concede that is it possible that the campaign against same-sex marriage (the campaign for traditional marriage) was mounted at that time simply because by coincidence the court cases forcing recognition of same-sex marriage had recently occurred. But it must be acknowledged that it is reasonable for a liberal to conclude that this campaign was toward a political end. (And, in the event, the Kentucky ballot measure passed 75% to 25%, and may have swayed a close senatorial race to the Republicans.) I can assure you, this was deeply resented by gay people and their many friends and supporters.
Let's discuss the pro-gay calculated position of liberals for political purposes. If the coin is flipped over does the same sentiment bother you.
Disagreement without malice is not intolerant. If I believe something to be true and you believe it to be false then how would that make either of us intolerant?
I would like to know more of your reference to mainstream medical science.
What if your pereception of anti gay were flipped and in my mind meant pro traditional family?
I attend Southeast and believe most everything done and said regarding this issue was a pro-traditional family position and not an anti gay sentiment.
I would agree that this was anything but coincidence. Our doctrine is highly pro traditional family and marriage because the bible is highly pro traditional marriage and pro family. If we spoke or taught otherwise that would make us a bit double minded wouldn't it?
You wouldn't expect a keynesian economist to tell you how great monetary policy is so why would you expect a Christian to speak something contrary to their biblical worldview.
As William notes, some evangelicals don’t handle this issue well. When this happens, it is highly unfortunate, a violation of the 3rd Commandment, and a black eye for God. Of course, liberals have a variety of other reasons for animosity—and often an ironic lack of tolerance—toward evangelicals.
All that said, I’m not sure why one would see most evangelical activism in this regard as anti-gay per se rather than a defense of marriage—however ethical or practical that approach might be.
If one interprets this as animus—given negative experiences they have had with Christians—then all I can do is empathize and apologize for past wrongs. If one interprets this wrongly as animus, then I understand the confusion, regret its existence, and accept any future apology of those who are confused.
A correlation between Southeast’s position and electoral politics is not surprising. But to Bryce’s point, if Southeast believes that the Bible defines marriage in this manner and sees this as an important issue, then their efforts—independent of partisan politics—are none too shocking.
Finally, to express Bryce’s thoughts in different words: Should evangelicals likewise interpret the efforts to change marriage with hostility? It seems like many people expect evangelicals to swallow this dramatic change in public policy—and one they view as harmful and unbiblical. And if they publicly oppose the change, then they risk being labeled intolerant, bigoted, and so on. How is that fair—especially for those who champion tolerance?
Both of you are right; I can hardly expect evangelicals to teach their beliefs with anything less than moral clarity. I will argue, hopefully with respect and in a friendly manner, that certain evangelical positions (though sincerely held and motivated by goodwill) happen to be wrong. Thank you, Eric, for providing this forum for this discussion.
Concerning mainstream medical science, the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association longer recognize homosexuality as a mental illness or disorder. These positions were the result of decades of scientific research. Please see:
Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Issues and
Answers to Your Questions
It's great that we can have dialogue without animosity.
Southeast is a church full of sinners. A hospital of sinners if you will. I'm just one of the many.
I like Eric, am sorry about evangelicals who make the news with protests and hate language targeted at gays and lesbians, and want people to realize that is not what Christianity is about. It's definately not something Southeast engages in. It is out there and to deny it would be a lie.
I think I would agree with William on the point that it is not a mental illness or disorder.
I don't know that I would have ever classified gay and lesbianism as a mental disorder/illness anymore than I would classify my propensity to drink in my past or my current obsessive compulsiveness as a mental disorder or illness. To me they stem from the fact that we live in a fallen world and from my inherent sinful nature. It's a daily struggle for me to do the things I know I should be doing.
But he said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness." Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ's power may rest on me.
- 2 Cor 12:9
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home