The Religious Right, internal critique: theory versus practice

[Darth Rotor]

I post this here, rather than in politics, because a great deal of what drives social debate is ideas, ideals, and clashes in philosophy: the framework through which one approaches the world. One of the great challenges to any idea system, set of ideas, or philosophy, be it moral, political, or a bit of both, is to cross the chasm between theory and practice.

http://townhall.com/columnists/CalThomas/2008/11/06/religious_right_rip

The above editorial essay comes from a man who has been affiliated with the Religious Right, in its latest incarnation, since its rise under Fallwell. His internal criticisms touch on what has bothered me with the RR's approach since I became aware of it in the early 1980's.

The leadership by example theme, at last raised from within rather than without, is one he asserts has not been embraced by the leadership of the RR. This core failure in leadership flies in the face of the behavioral point embodied in Christ's admonition to "pick up your cross, and follow me." The interpretation of that I most favor is "follow my example."

What Thomas suggests in his short essay is that the overreliance on the worldly kingdom has undermined the attempts at undertaking the role of societal, moral leadership that has been the aim of the RR in the first place. (He rightfully notes Prohibition as a failure, and the Abolitionist movement as a success, of the varoiusly timed Protestant Evangelical movements.)

Now, after half a decade of watching the Religious Right cover itself in hubris and self inflicted wounds, Thomas finally admits the core problem with the movement: if you don't walk the walk, talking the talk doesn't do you much good.

This is true for any moral philosophy, or ideology, and so I come again to my standard difficulty with philosophy: if it isn't implementable, it's not much use, is it? Taking that weakness in application to what Thomas addresses, the aim of spreading a particular moral philosophy, or ideology, from the bottom up, rather than from the top down via the political process, I wonder if what the Evangelical movement thinks can be done can in fact be done.

I think it best to look outside the borders of the US for a few answers. The Evangelical movement is alive and well in Africa, in Asia. (Whether or not that's a good thing is a matter of debate.) It is for the time being working successfully at getting acceptance at the grass roots level. (See South Korea for an interesting study in the spread of the Protestant version of Christianity. What puzzles me is this: has it materially changed the cultural mores of Koreans? I don't know. Does anyone? ) I have a suspicion that the applicability of the "walk the walk" imperative to this philosophy is inherently limited by the problem of scaling: once reaching a certain size, it trips over itself.

Thomas, in his conclusion, strikes me as wishing away the problems of scale imbedded in any idea's applicability.

Comments?

DR

[volatile]

To paraphrase what Dr. Adequate said in another thread, regarding another issue entirely - if you are having trouble convincing people that you're right, maybe it's because you're wrong.

[Darth Rotor]

To paraphrase what Dr. Adequate said in another thread, regarding another issue entirely - if you are having trouble convincing people that you're right, maybe it's because you're wrong.
The world is a color television set, not a black and white idiot box. My concern on scale is as applicable to Communism as it is to the Protestant Evangelical community's attempts to spread their "better idea." Communes are still working, at the small scale, in my country, though they aren't quite the fad they were in the 1970's.

Raise the bar, will you?

DR

[ImaginalDisc]

The world is a color television set, not a black and white idiot box. My concern on scale is as applicable to Communism as it is to the Protestant Evangelical community's attempts to spread their "better idea." Communes are still working, at the small scale, in my country, though they aren't quite the fad they were in the 1970's.

Raise the bar, will you?

DR

Just because there exists continua of opinions and ideas that doesn't mean that all ideas have some value. Sometimes, people are simply wrong.

[plumjam]

To paraphrase what Dr. Adequate said in another thread, regarding another issue entirely - if you are having trouble convincing people that you're right, maybe it's because you're wrong.

Which is the kind of phrase which will be no stranger to the lips of the worst kinds of fundamentalists.

[volatile]

The world is a color television set, not a black and white idiot box. My concern on scale is as applicable to Communism as it is to the Protestant Evangelical community's attempts to spread their "better idea." Communes are still working, at the small scale, in my country, though they aren't quite the fad they were in the 1970's.

Raise the bar, will you?

DR

I'm not quite sure what the point you're trying to make is. All I was trying to say is that I find it depressing that even after an abject failure to make any real in-roads into establishing their backwards, spiteful ideology despite money, media backing and the force of history, the Religious Right still don't seem to have given pause for thought that maybe, just maybe, they're wrong.

The article is a perfect distillation of just that point. The author persists that it's not the message that's unconvincing - oh no - just the medium and mode of distribution. Reality says otherwise, I'm afraid.

[volatile]

Just to add to that - the weakness of the moral philosophy that the author acknowledges is precisely why is can never gain a true foothold in a modern society. It is founded on hypocrisy, deceit and, come to think of it, seems to work against much of what we have learnt of individual and social psychology.

He's right, in a sense, to point that out. What he's missing, though, is that the "problem" he sees is, in fact, intractable, and more importantly, isn't actually a problem at all, at least not in the terms he defines it. The moral philosophy he and his ilk espouse is unconvincing because it is wrong, I'm afraid; there's a glimmer of recognition of this fact in that article, but it's quickly subdued by some pie-in-the-sky political strategising that amounts, thankfully, to little more than tilting at windmills.

[Delvo]

Certain famous persons' famous non-application of the morality they talk about does not mean that what they're talking about isn't applicable. It just means they're not doing it themselves, which has nothing to do with whether or not others do it or whether or not it's doable. I don't eat sardines. It doesn't make sardines inedible.

[volatile]

It's not "certain famous people". It's almost certainly everyone who professes any kind of holier-than-thou attitude.

The author of the linked article is right - people just don't like prurient Victorian moralising. Good.

[juryjone]

From the article:


Suppose they followed the admonition of Jesus to "love your enemies, pray for those who persecute you, feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit those in prison and care for widows and orphans," not as ends, as so many liberals do by using government, but as a means of demonstrating God's love for the whole person in order that people might seek Him?


Wouldn't this be changing their goals? "Loving your neighbor" doesn't include telling him he can't get married - at least not in my book. Grassroots "leading by example" precludes dictating the morals of your neighbor - and dictating is what the Religous Right is all about.

[D'rok]

As much as I completely reject the moral philosophy of the religious right, I think the article is correct in at least one aspect - ideas create the political world. And right now, the dominant idea in the Western world is some form of liberalism. Short of totalitarian tyranny, the political world can only be changed by changing the dominant idea, and that will not happen politically.

Socrates didn't try to change Athens by speaking at the Assembly - he wandered around the Agora interrogating his interlocutors. (And indulged in wine-soaked symposiums on couches with beautiful young boys - but that's another matter). Jesus' ministry used the same guerrilla tactics (minus the young boys, of course).

The irony for Socrates and for the American religious right is that they both require a free - i.e. "liberal" - society in order to enter the marketplace of ideas. Sparta would have executed Socrates long before Athens did rather than let him agitate into his dotage.

If the religious right succeeds in following the model of Jesus' original ministry, they will destroy the very fabric of their success, and we will all suffer for it. If a successful religious right allows the freedom of the agora, it hasn't been successful - it is still liberal. The religious right can only succeed by destroying the agora, but it requires the agora to succeed. Without the freedom of the agora, there can be no new Socrates, and therefore no new ideas, and therefore no new politics.

That would be the end of History and the death of Man.

[Hokulele]

I think it best to look outside the borders of the US for a few answers. The Evangelical movement is alive and well in Africa, in Asia. (Whether or not that's a good thing is a matter of debate.) It is for the time being working successfully at getting acceptance at the grass roots level. (See South Korea for an interesting study in the spread of the Protestant version of Christianity. What puzzles me is this: has it materially changed the cultural mores of Koreans? I don't know. Does anyone? ) I have a suspicion that the applicability of the "walk the walk" imperative to this philosophy is inherently limited by the problem of scaling: once reaching a certain size, it trips over itself.


As a side note on the South Korea question, their indigenous religion was quite similar to Christianity in many ways, which may have made it spread more easily, unlike, say, Japan. In addition, the spread in Korea can be traced back to one Evangelical family, which lends support to your main thesis. We will see how the church there manages in the long run, particularly if it succumbs to the temptation of nepotism.

Going back to your other questions in the OP, I think one of the biggest challenges for the leadership of Christianity is the whole concept of thought-crime. From what I know, the New Testament was the first place where just thinking about sinning is equivalent to committing the acts. This makes it next to impossible for anyone, leader or no, to faithfully follow the philosophy. I also believe this is where Communism and other ideologies that seem to persecute intellectual crimes are doomed to failure for the reasons described in your article.

[volatile]

Going back to your other questions in the OP, I think one of the biggest challenges for the leadership of Christianity is the whole concept of thought-crime. From what I know, the New Testament was the first place where just thinking about sinning is equivalent to committing the acts. This makes it next to impossible for anyone, leader or no, to faithfully follow the philosophy. I also believe this is where Communism and other ideologies that seem to persecute intellectual crimes are doomed to failure for the reasons described in your article.

Hear, hear.

[Silentknight]

Some excerpts from the article that I liked:
Does the secular left, when it holds power, persuade conservatives to live by their standards? Of course they do not. Why, then, would conservative Evangelicals expect people who do not share their worldview and view of God to accept their beliefs when they control government?
If results are what conservative Evangelicals want, they already have a model. It is contained in the life and commands of Jesus of Nazareth. Suppose millions of conservative Evangelicals engaged in an old and proven type of radical behavior. Suppose they followed the admonition of Jesus to "love your enemies, pray for those who persecute you, feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit those in prison and care for widows and orphans," not as ends, as so many liberals do by using government, but as a means of demonstrating God's love for the whole person in order that people might seek Him?

But then some idiot responded in the comments section:
"Does the secular left, when it holds power, persuade conservatives to live by their standards?"

Actually, Cal, yes they do. They try to prevent Christians from worshipping as their conscience dictates and in public schools they work tirelessly to undermine any religious or moral teaching parents may have given to their children. In short, secularists do everything in their power to ensure that Christians and other believers walk around acting as if they are atheists.
Hey idiot, your persecution complex is showing. Got any specific examples of Christians having their rights taken away in the way you allege? Have you heard about a little thing called the US Constitution and its separation of church and state? Or are you just appealing to pity, playing the victim in a bizarre manner of justifying how the religious right has attempted to trample on the rights of others through legislation? Wielding power is not one of the typical characteristics of a victim.

[Darth Rotor]

Thanks to Hok and Drok for the insightful responses. The paradox in particular scratched the itch that was on my brain as I read Thomas' article and was writing the post.

DR

[trvlr2]

I'm not quite sure what the point you're trying to make is. All I was trying to say is that I find it depressing that even after an abject failure to make any real in-roads into establishing their backwards, spiteful ideology despite money, media backing and the force of history, the Religious Right still don't seem to have given pause for thought that maybe, just maybe, they're wrong.

The article is a perfect distillation of just that point. The author persists that it's not the message that's unconvincing - oh no - just the medium and mode of distribution. Reality says otherwise, I'm afraid.

I think you have stated the situation very well.

[Darth Rotor]

I think you have stated the situation very well.
No, an opinion was articulately presented.

[Foster Zygote]

I'm reminded of Jimmy Carter's book Our Endangered Values, which I read a couple of years ago and found very interesting. One of the issues he discusses is the change in a large part of the evangelical community from a much more democratic association to one with a central power determined to dictate an official doctrine.

It seems to me that this is part of the problem leading to a top down approach rather than a bottom up approach.

[volatile]

No, an opinion was articulately presented.

And do you have anything to say about that opinion, Darth?

[Ichneumonwasp]

Darth,

I think the problem people have with the "moral majority" is that they (as a political group, and this is probably true of all large political groups) were never about walking the walk. As with all moral actors, look not at what they say, but at what they do to see where their hearts truly lie. The moral majority movement concerned a particular type of political power -- like Calvinist Geneva or the early Puritan societies in the U.S. The criticism of the moral majority has always been that they (as a general rule, certainly not all of them, since there were some very good people in the movement) never walked the walk, so I'm afraid that Cal Thomas is roughly 30 years late in coming to this realization. They picked up a particular strain of conservative social policy, sought justification in scripture for it (and since we can find justification in scripture for almost anything........), and used it to try to repress behavior, not to enlighten, enrich or instruct.

And, yes, walking the walk is what gives oomph to a moral philosophy. There is a reason why we still talk about Socrates to this day, and it is not because of some supposed internal power of Plato's philosophy which most people don't understand anyway (and which is probably completely wrong).

We learn morals not by speech or fiat, but by modelling the behavior of those around us and by making moral choices for ourselves. We screw up, we improve, we show others how to behave by doing it right the next time -- largely by showing the moral courage to do the right thing.

[D'rok]

...

And, yes, walking the walk is what gives oomph to a moral philosophy. There is a reason why we still talk about Socrates to this day, and it is not because of some supposed internal power of Plato's philosophy which most people don't understand anyway (and which is probably completely wrong).

...

+1

(The rest was good too)

[Elizabeth I]

To paraphrase what Dr. Adequate said in another thread, regarding another issue entirely - if you are having trouble convincing people that you're right, maybe it's because you're wrong.

Which is the kind of phrase which will be no stranger to the lips of the worst kinds of fundamentalists.

No, the word "maybe" forever separates volatile's statement from fundamentalism.

[Tumblehome]

One of the great challenges to any idea system, set of ideas, or philosophy, be it moral, political, or a bit of both, is to cross the chasm between theory and practice.


The Religious Right's failure to cross that chasm is inevitable, isn't it? The source and inspiration for its ideology, the bible, proposes an idealized, unrealistic approach to life that's impossible to follow to the letter, given the wide range of "weaknesses" we're born with. It's no wonder that people who come to think they are Jesus end up insane. The disjunct between what the bible teaches and what people experience every day can't be reconciled.

[steve s]

The leadership by example theme, at last raised from within rather than without, is one he asserts has not been embraced by the leadership of the RR. This core failure in leadership flies in the face of the behavioral point embodied in Christ's admonition to "pick up your cross, and follow me." The interpretation of that I most favor is "follow my example."

What Thomas suggests in his short essay is that the overreliance on the worldly kingdom has undermined the attempts at undertaking the role of societal, moral leadership that has been the aim of the RR in the first place. (He rightfully notes Prohibition as a failure, and the Abolitionist movement as a success, of the varoiusly timed Protestant Evangelical movements.)

Now, after half a decade of watching the Religious Right cover itself in hubris and self inflicted wounds, Thomas finally admits the core problem with the movement: if you don't walk the walk, talking the talk doesn't do you much good.



It's not the first time that Cal Thomas has had this epiphany. He wrote a similar article some years ago. I tend to agree with what Volatile wrote. At what point do people finally stop and think "Maybe I'm wrong about all this."


It makes me think back to about 1990 when a study on Americans' sexual habits was released. (This was the study that was supposed to be done during Reagan's administration but was canned due to objections from the religious right.) In the study it found that the two groups with the highest rates of divorce and infidelity were Catholics and Evangelicals. Atheists had one of the lowest rates. (IIRC, Mormons had the lowest) If the RR's philosophy is so superior to atheism, then why can't they behave better than us? The answer that "We're human" doesn't cut it. Atheists are human too and we manage to behave ourselves. Why can't they?

Steve S.