Originally, I was going to do a series of diary on religious (il)literacy that was based around the idea that many people don't really understand the vocabulary and the ideas that are prominent in religious scholarship. Unfortunately, I'm not sure how easy it is to boil down a huge field of scholarship to a few diaries (or even a lot of diaries) and maintain any interest. So, instead, I'll devote the 'Religious (Il)literacy' space to, um, misconceptions about religious topics on DKos and in the news. I con't promise regularity, but I'll promise substance.
Today's topic: The Christian Left. I'm not, I should point out, talking about the religious left, but only because it's too large and diverse to whittle down to a diary entry.
A comment on this diary is what got me thinking this week. Well, other comments got me going as well, but we'll get to them later. I won't list the author, because I don't want to pick on anyone, but here's the comment:
'Bout Time
To my knowledge, the Institute on Progressive Christianity was the only group to take up the challenge.
I'm close to thinking that this is "too little too late."
I won't be impressed until "Progressive Christians" are strong enough that they are the dominant voice on those dozens of Christian tv channels. I doubt I'll see it in my lifetime. I'm certainly not holding my breath. In my lifetime, what I've seen is so-called "Progressive Christians" have the strength and willpower of butter standing up to a knife.
There's an occasional assumption, when a diary is posted about the Christian left, that the Christian left is 'finally' showing up to the fight, and that if we were really serious about the problems of the modern (post-modern?) world, we would be as powerful as the Christian right. The tacit assumption often seems to be that we've been taking a back seat to the whole culture-wars thing, and if we're finally showing up, that's fine, but we should have been here before now.
The problem with this is that the Christian left has been around, and doing a lot of work, we just don't get noticed that often.
A (Very) Short History of the Christian Left
It doesn't really make a lot of sense to talk about there being a Christian left before there was a Christian right. Of course, there have long been both, we might consider the Christian left that composed a large part of the abolitionist movement versus the Christian right that composed a large part of the pro-slavery side. Neither the Christian left or the Christian right that existed at that time, however, could really be considered movements in and of themselves. Rather, they were parts of other movements.
It's easier to think of the Christian Left in relation to what became its ideological opposite in the twentieth century: Fundamentalism and the Evangelical Right (as an aside, one shouldn't confuse strict fundamentalism with evangelicalism, nor assume that all evangelicals are on the right). To choose a rather arbitrary starting point for the Christian left, I'm going to choose a person: Harry Emerson Fosdick.
While Fosdick was far from perfect, he outlined the essential threat that early-twentieth-century fundamentalism presented, and the modernist response, in his most famous sermon, "Shall the Fundamentalists Win?". In this sermon, Fosdick lays out the concerns of what would become the Christian left:
The second element which is needed if we are to reach a happy solution of this problem is a clear insight into the main issues of modern Christianity and a sense of penitent shame that the Christian Church should be quarreling over little matters when the world is dying of great needs. If, during the war, when the nations were wrestling upon the very brink of hell and at times all seemed lost, you chanced to hear two men in an altercation about some minor matter of sectarian denominationalism, could you restrain your indignation? You said, "What can you do with folks like this who, in the face of colossal issues, play with the tiddledywinks and peccadillos of religion?" So, now, when from the terrific questions of this generation one is called away by the noise of this Fundamentalist controversy, he thinks it almost unforgivable that men should tithe mint and anise and cummin, and quarrel over them, when the world is perishing for the lack of the weightier matters of the law, justice, and mercy, and faith. . . .
The present world situation smells to heaven! And now, in the presence of colossal problems, which must be solved in Christ’s name and for Christ’s sake, the Fundamentalists propose to drive out from the Christian churches all the consecrated souls who do not agree with their theory of inspiration. What immeasurable folly!
Well, they are not going to do it; certainly not in this vicinity. I do not even know in this congregation whether anybody has been tempted to be a Fundamentalist. Never in this church have I caught one accent of intolerance. God keep us always so and ever increasing areas of the Christian fellowship; intellectually hospitable, open-minded, liberty-loving, fair, tolerant, not with the tolerance of indifference, as though we did not care about the faith, but because always our major emphasis is upon the weightier matters of the law. [That is, justice, mercy, and faithfulness]
Were I to pick another arbitrary starting point, I might point to the beginnings of the Social Gospel movement in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. To quote Wikipedia:
The Social Gospel was a driving force in much of Protestant America. The Presbyterians said it best in 1910: [Rogers and Blade 1998]
The great ends of the church are the proclamation of the gospel for the salvation of humankind; the shelter, nurture, and spiritual fellowship of the children of God; the maintenance of divine worship; the preservation of truth; the promotion of social righteousness; and the exhibition of the Kingdom of Heaven to the world.
In the early 20th century, many Americans were disgusted by the poverty level and the low quality of living in the slums. The social gospel movement provided a religious rationale for action to remove those evils. Activists in the Social Gospel movement hoped that by public health measures as well as enforced schooling so the poor could develop talents and skills, the quality of their moral lives would begin to improve. Important concerns of the Social Gospel movement were labor reforms, such as abolishing child labor and regulating the hours of work by mothers. By 1920 they were crusading against the 12-hour day for men at U.S. Steel. Many reformers inspired by the movement opened settlement houses, most notably Hull House in Chicago operated by Jane Addams. They helped the poor and immigrants improve their lives. Settlement houses offered services such as daycare, education, and health care to needy people in slum neighborhoods.
In the United States prior to World War I, the Social Gospel was the religious wing of the progressive movement which had the aim of combatting injustice, suffering and poverty in society. During the New Deal of the 1930s Social Gospel themes could be seen in the work of Harry Hopkins, Will Alxander and Mary McLeod Bethune, who added a new concern with African Americans. After 1940, the movement withered, but was invigorated in the 1950s by black leaders like Baptist minister Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement. After 1980 it weakened again as a major force inside mainstream churches; indeed those churches were losing strength. Examples of its continued existence can still be found, notably the organization known as the Call to Renewal.
Indeed, the Social Gospel movement has almost a direct line from the late nineteenth century to the modern day, as outlined in the quote above: Dorothy Day, Jesse Jackson Sr., and Martin Luther King Jr., and Jim Wallis were all influenced by the Social Gospel movement (and some still are).
If Fosdick's work from the pulpit and the Social Gospel movement truly represented the Christian left, then we would be stuck with a movement that was started almost exclusively by white men. The Christian left, however, is more diverse than that, and includes a variety of views that, while at times in conflict theologically, are generally in harmony about their views of what the world ought to be like: Black Theology, Liberation Theology, Womanist Theology, Feminist Theology, and Queer Theology all share the concerns of Fosdick and the Social Gospel movement, though in quite different contexts. It is because of the ability to the Christian left to operate within different racial, gender, and sexual groups that it has been able to work on such issues as racial equality (Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., for example), gender equality (Rosemary Radford Ruether), LGBT rights (Rev. Troy Perry), poverty issues in Latin America (Leonardo Boff, Gustavo Gutierrez), and so on. The Christian left, and its concerns for justice, mercy, and faithfulness, has been around for a while. At some times it's been more vocal than at others, but it hasn't ever gone away.
I recognize that what is above is nowhere near an adequate history, but I hope it gives an idea of an outline. Plenty more examples of people who have worked on behalf of the Christian left could be named, which might give a fuller outline, but I think you get the idea.
Why Don't They Stand Up More?
Despite the fact that the Christian left has existed for, well, a long time, it often isn't seen. While Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell are household names, Troy Perry isn't. Nor are Rosemary Radford Ruether, Leonardo Boff, Sallie McFague, and so forth. Indeed, very few members of the Christian left seem to gain lasting fame: Martin Luther King is remembered, but seems to have lived so long ago. A few people gain prominence for a time, but then fade in and out of obscurity: John Shelby Spong, Jim Wallis, etc., noticed from time to time, but hardly on par with the notoriety enjoyed by Robertson and his ilk. Two reasons have been suggested for this.
One is that there simply aren't that many members of the Christian left. At least, not that many who take politics seriously. I have no idea what the actual numbers are, but my guess is that there are quite a few members of the left who are Christian, and whose Christianity and politics work hand in hand. I'm more partial to the second explanation, paraphrased beautifully in a response to the user comment above:
The very things that make Progressive Christians not like the fundies also makes it difficult to combat the perceptions. We are not the "look at us" brand of Christian.
Some Christians are not the proselytizing sort. We don't wear our faith on our sleeve. We don't make sure the person we are helping, or simply being kind to, knows about our faith. Our faith informs much of what we do, but it is private for us. So that lady at the bakery that you always thought was just the nicest person you ever met may well have been a Christian - only she'd never tell you that unless you asked specifically.
Most of us don't do TV
The problem with telling progressive Christians to stand up is the above. It's not in our nature to bray about our faith, or insert it into all debates. It's sort of like telling us that in order to prove we are not like those who shout about Jesus, we must shout equally as loud as they do. That we must, to some degree, become like what we despise - by being more public and vocal about a faith that we call personal.
I applaud the more liberal Christian leadership for making this statement, and wish they'd do more of it, but it's a conundrum.
I hope you can see that as far as everyday life goes, the progressive "invisible" Christians are in a bit of a Catch-22 as far as counteracting the vocal fundies goes, precisely because we don't shove our faith in peoples faces. That reticence is not necessarily lack of strength. It's that we deeply believe in the intimate, private nature of our faith.
The Christian left tends to be made up of people who want to live their faith, not yell about it, and thus it is easy to fade into the background. A group of liberal/progressive Christians, in my experience, could easily hold an anti-war rally based on the premise that Christianity is about peace without mentioning Jesus, God, Christianity, or religion one time. We have a habit of silencing ourselves.
There are some other reasons, though, that need to be looked at, or at least mentioned:
- The cultural descendence of mainstream Christianity. Mainline churches (Presbyterians, Methodists, UCC, Lutherans, etc.) have been losing membership and money over the past few decades. Unfortunately, many still act as though they are still the primary source of values-language for Americans. We've simply failed to alter the way we work to reflect our fairly new status of, if not an actual minority, a much smaller majority than we were even twenty years ago.
- We've been moved into the academy. Most prominent liberal/progressive theologians teach. That's fine. Hell, I'd like to teach someday. What that means, though, is that finding a prominent liberal/progressive theologian to speak on an issue means not going to the TV (where one can find plenty of conservative theologians) but to the Seminaries and Universities. To make matters worse, religious departments of universities, divinity schools, and mainline seminaries are in real financial trouble across the nation. These institutions are cutting staff, housing, benefits, salaries, etc. in order to make ends meet, which means that even the resource of professional academic theologians is drying up.
- Money, money, money. We might as well hit a common theme: the conservative Christianity movement have more cash. The conservatives have television stations, radio stations, publishing arms, magazines, etc. on a much larger scale. In large part, this is because they can afford to. The Christian left competes as well as it can with limited resources, turning to a few magazines and newsletters, podcasts, blogs, and the like. That's all very well and good, but until we are able to effective harness these resources, we won't be able to compete with the cultural influence of the right.
Alright, so there's really no need to outline all of the problems here. Just read Markos and Jerome's book and replace 'Democratic Party' with 'Christian Left' and you'll get some of the idea.
The Christian Left is Not an Ally of the Liberal/Progressive Movement
Finally, a nitpick. I can't find the comment, but some have suggested that the Christian left and the general liberal/progressive movement would make good allies. I firmly disagree, for a rather simple reason: to say that the Christian left would make a natural ally of the liberal/progressive movement is like suggesting that Bavaria would make a natural ally of Germany. Bavaria is part of Germany! Likewise, the Christian left is part of the liberal and progressive movements! We're already among you. We're already working with you. Hell, some of us have been leaders within the movement(s). Just a nitpick, but notice where we are within the movements, and, if you're so inclined, help us out.
Coming up Next?
I don't know when the next Religious (Il)literacy diary will be, it really depends on what's going on in the news and around the web. However, I am currently reading Dawkins's The God Delusion, to I imagine I'll have something to say about that soon.