Natalie Burris

Would Jesus promote family values?

Chapter 5 of Stephanie Coontz's The Way We Never Were discusses how the turn toward "family values" in the U.S. resulted in a turn away from community values and encourged consumerism and selfishness.

The turn toward family values in the U.S. signals a break from the previous conventional wisdom that public values were superior to private values of love and personal nurturance (p. 96). The goal to spend more time with one's family was not an important one to our nation's founders (p. 96). Coontz continues:

[T]he elevation of family life to the center of morality sanctioned a rising degree of consumerism and selfishness within the middle class, by distinguishing its legitimate spending from the "irresponsible" dissipation of others.

(p. 109). Post-Civil War, Christian theology helped with this move toward private, family morals. "The popular preacher Henry Ward Beecher gradually shifted his message after the Civil War from emphasis on the corruptions of wealth and urban life to a defense of private domesticity" (p. 109). Spending money on your family meant, to Beecher, that children's lives would be improved. 

I criticized U.S. Christianity's role in the turn toward individualistic family values when I left behind conversative politics and Christianity. Al Hsu's The Suburban Christian, Shane Claiborne's The Irresistible Revolution, and Anne Lamott's Plan B: Further Thoughts on Faith all came together in a great way to demonstrate that U.S. Christians' "family values" do not jive with the Gospel. 

I wrote about Hsu's book here:

I tend to notice alternative ways of thinking about families, mainly because one political/religious group in our country has a monolopy on "family." They think they get to define and defend it. What bothers me most is some say their focus on the family is Christian-based, when really their notion of family comes from our culture or even capitalism. Since I'm currently reading The Suburban Christian by Al Hsu, a few sections regarding family jumped out at me.

The very layout of suburbia is driven by American individualism. Each family is to have its own home, yard, transportation etc. Hsu notes, "Inherent to American suburbia is an emphasis on the pursuit of individual homeownership rather than a communal or corporate vision of civic community" (39). 

[...]

[I]t seems truly having family values involves more than making sure movies don't have sex scenes or curse words. It means more than focusing on "sanctity of marriage" or "sanctity of life." Espousing family values that correspond with the Gospel may mean practicing things that hit closer to home. Sure, it would be easy for me to parrot the talking points of James Dobson, but thinking about my living space in terms of economic justice and community is a different story!

I've pondered "a new vision of family," wondering if we as Christians have used the idea of family as sort of an exclusive tribalism:

Recently I’ve been reading Shane Claiborne and Anne Lamott. A theme in both of their books that I’ve read centers on family—but a different and broader sense of family. Both mention Jesus’ (and Gandhi’s) teachings—that to be saved means to see everyone on earth as family. Claiborne, in The Irresistible Revolution, talks about a “vision of family that is larger than biology or nationalism” (163). Evangelicals like to use the term “born again.” What a great way to think about being born into a global family! Claiborne asks what it means to be born again into a family where our brothers and sisters are starving to death. In the “dysfunctional family of Yahweh,” what does it mean for churches to spend insane amounts of money on maintaining/building church buildings when our family members are going without? A good biological father would never let his children starve while he fancies up his house. Allowing people to go hungry, without decent housing, or without healthcare would be difficult if we thought of them as family.

In Scripture, the ever-subversive Jesus doesn’t really come across as pro-traditional family. He offers a new way to think about family, one that transcends geographical and biological lines. 

What Coontz calls a "turn toward home" has resulted in a "truncated sense of larger social obligations and commitments" (p. 120). The turn toward private morality and individualism in U.S. evangelicalism mirrors the larger trend that Coontz explores. David Fitch, in The End of Evangelicalism, reveals the damaging individualism of U.S. evangelicalism. For example, Enron and WorldCom CEO's, heavily involved in the church and necessarily great family men, committed acts of greed and plunder on a large scale.

Because of the emphasis on private moral values, U.S. evangelical Christianity suffers from a disconnect between private and public,  home and community. Coontz does an excellent job of showing how an emphasis on family values actually denigrates community values and fosters selfishness. It's too bad that many U.S. Christians have been unable to critique this characteristic of our culture, instead absorbing it completely. Perhaps we need to change course and figure out how to follow the Jesus who was subversively not a proponent of what we now call traditional, U.S. family values. Would Jesus promote "family values"? Probably not the way we've framed them here in the U.S.

Evangelical gatekeepers, sexual abuse, and gay marriage

White conservative evangelicals in the U.S. are very quick to distance themselves from any individual, organization, or company that is willing to break from the "traditional" U.S. evangelical belief that being gay is a sin. 

A couple of months ago, World Vision's U.S. branch announced its policy, already in place for several months, to hire gay Christians who are legally married. The reaction from white conservative evangelicals was swift, and World Vision reportedly lost 10,000 child sponsorships in two days. The organization quickly reversed itself to stop the bleeding.

Last month, Matthew Vines  published a book through Convergent Books, titled God and the Gay Christian. According to its Chief Publishing Executive, "Convergent Books is a relatively new imprint that is one of the Crown Publishing Group’s religious publishing lines. WaterBrook Press and Multnomah Books are sister imprints of Convergent Books, within the Crown Group, as is Image Books, a Catholic-interest imprint, all four of which" are overseen by the same Chief Publishing Executive. Predictably, white conservative evangelicals were not happy with the release of the book.

Last week, Christianity Today reported that Multnomah resigned its membership in the National Religious Broadcasters because Multnomah shares employees with Convergent. Multnomah itself did not publish Vines' book. Ruth Graham shared her thoughts on Twitter:

So, this is a clear message from at least one pocket of evangelicalism: Absolutely no room for disagreement on the issue of homosexuality.

— Ruth Graham (@publicroad) May 16, 2014

I've interviewed @VinesMatthew 2x & he's thoroughly respectful of evangelicalism. He told me he calls himself a theological conservative!

— Ruth Graham (@publicroad) May 16, 2014

So it's remarkable to see such a forceful rejection of him by other theological conservatives. No room at the inn.

— Ruth Graham (@publicroad) May 16, 2014

This phenomenon is not limited to the U.S. Last year, British evangelical Steve Chalke revealed in Christianity Magazine that he does not believe that the Bible condemns same-sex relationships. Chalke is a major evangelical is the U.K. The Evangelical Alliance, which is the umbrella organization for evangelicals in the U.K., removed  Chalke's ministry from its membership because of Chalke's views.

The evangelical gatekeepers have made it clear: even if you can check the right theological boxes, you will not be welcome in their tribe if you do not toe the line on LGBTQ issues. Gatekeepers will swiftly ensure that their tribe is opposed to same-sex marriage, or any other break from the belief that being gay is a sin. 

However, with regard to the recent sexual abuse lawsuit against Sovereign Grace Ministries ("SGM"), many white conservative evangelicals are quick to claim that no one should be guilty by association. There is no radical break like we see with people and companies that make a move, no matter how small, toward accepting our LGBTQ brothers and sisters. While I do not agree with the swift boundary-policing exhibited by the U.S. and U.K.'s white evangelicals, it is telling that those same groups fail to quickly distance themselves from SGM, who covered up horrendous abuse.

A conservation on Twitter yesterday, led by Emily Maynard, is a great example of this double standard. Maynard grew up Reformed and is very familiar with SGM. She shared her disgust after a youth group leader at an SGM-affiliated church was convicted of sexually abusing young boys:

All of the leaders & pastors I grew up with disgust me now. Keller, Piper, Mahaney, Gregg/Josh Harris talk holy until kids are abused.

— Emily Maynard (@emelina) May 18, 2014

Maynard was criticized for "lumping together" these pastors. She responded:

@stephenedwardc Keller's in the same circles. They are ALL connected. Through books, speaking gigs, conferences, supporting ministries etc.

— Emily Maynard (@emelina) May 18, 2014

The Gospel Coalition has been silent on the SGM lawsuit, because, in their own words, "[w]e are not in a place to adjudicate all the charges leveled against Sovereign Grace Ministries or the specific individuals named in the lawsuit." 

It's interesting that many evangelical groups are quick to break ties with anyone who does not believe that being gay is a sin, yet are cautious and claim that it's not their right to "adjudicate" when it comes to sexual abuse of children. Evangelical gatekeepers have made another thing clear: sexual abuse and the subsequent cover-up is acceptable within their tribe.

9 years ago: the inerrancy of Falwell and Bush

From May 2005:

Sorry about the semi-long absence...school usually gives me lots to blog about, so since it’s out and finals pretty much drained my brain, I’m gonna be a little light on the blogging. But I wanted to mention my Jerry Falwell book I had to read for a class. Anthropologist Susan Harding followed him around for a few years doing an ethnography about him, his Thomas Road Baptist Church parishioners, and Liberty College. She focused on the language that fundamentalist Christians use, drawing from Foucault a lot. The way she boils everything down to language, plus her lumping together of many kinds of Christians, frankly caused me and another student in the class to have mini-faith crises! It’s okay, we have those every day at Wheaton, but it definitely made us think. Well, that’s another post for another day...

But anyway, Harding discusses how Falwell’s followers assign to him the author function, which works really well within this fundamentalist context. Falwell created and controlled an “empire of words,” built on Biblical language. This em­pire produced and dissemin­ated rhetoric to millions of people across the United States. According to Foucault, an author is not necessarily an individual that has writ­ten a work. Rather, the name of the author signifies a specific mode of discourse, and the things produced by the author, which are works, receive a certain status because of the name with which it is affiliated.

Harding’s ethnography demonstrates that Falwell’s works, wheth­er they were sermons, pamphlets, or books, automatically had a certain status because of their author. The author function in Falwell’s case is striking because fundamentalist Christians insist on a literal interpretation of the Bible, and absolute truth—as well as absolute truthfulness—exist. When Harding examines the works (not necessarily in book form) that Falwell produces, a gap exists between truth and reali­ty. Falwell’s followers, however, continue to accept him as their leader, in spite of the moral ambiguity. Harding discusses how Falwell’s autobiography requires his followers to take leaps of faith. Even beyond his childhood Falwell was embroiled in con­troversy.

How can this happen? Fundamentalists rely on a “poetics of faith,” meaning that believers place their faith in the inerrancy of the Bible, an inerrancy that extends to preachers as well. The truth that comes from Falwell is mediated, and because of his scandals and moral ambigui­ties, his truth requires harmonization on the part of believers. Falwell can, in effect, “get away” with things because he is blessed by God, because he too can assume inerran­cy. In this context, the author is privileged, that is, whatever comes from Falwell is legitimized, regardless of its ac­cur­acy. According to Harding, Falwell’s life stories, his “preacherly dis­course,” are a form of “rhetorical art” that increases his church people’s loyalty to him.

Another excellent example of the author function in Falwell’s context occurred when he claimed that he had asked then-President Jimmy Car­t­er why he had homosexuals on staff at the White House. Audiotapes proved otherwise, so Fal­well explained that he was speaking in allegorical form. This apocryphal story highlight the author function that Falwell has assumed, because his followers notice the discrepancies, yet con­tinue to be loyal to him. Because Falwell is a man of God, ordained and blessed by God, the works that he contributes to the overall discourse do not have to be literally true.

Yet another interesting event happened in the 1960’s, when Falwell distributed a sermon pamphlet titled “Ministers and Marchers” that insisted Christians be separate from the world. When his discourse started to move away from separatism and toward active poli­tical engagement, he tried to collect the pamphlets, officially rejecting his earlier position and pronouncing it “false prophecy.” None of Falwell’s sermons from the 1950’s and ‘60’s are in his archives. His staff told Harding that he did not want his words to be used against him, since his positions had certainly changed. In fact, Falwell support­ed segregation and had preached sermons in favor of it during the late 1950’s.

These incidents demonstrate the powerful author function that Falwell had through his words. He attempted to control the discourse, and in doing so fashioned a national following, rather than one that was limited to the South. He knew the power of words, carefully allowing what his community heard or read. It was not as if his community did not know of his earlier positions; rather, his followers re-construed these seemingly contrary facts to fit in with other things that Falwell had authored.

So, was anyone else thinking that President Bush has also assumed this author function? In spite of his untruthfulness, discrepancies, etc., he still has people defending him. W too can get away with things—he is blessed and ordained, right?! And as in the case with Jerry Falwell, W's followers, many holding to a literal interpretation of the Bible, ignore or harmonize his gaps between truth and reality, his “moral ambiguities.” So it seems our president too assumes inerrancy?

2 years ago: Pro-life evangelicals and prior inconsistent statements

From February 2012:

The Gospel Coalition blog recently rounded up some evangelical leaders' calls for civil disobedience. Requiring religious employers to provide health insurance that covers contraception (regardless of who actually pays for it), is effectively forcing pro-life Christians to violate their conscience. These evangelicals claim that some of the drugs to be covered are abortifacients.

Such violation of religious liberty will not stand.  These men, along with the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, are so concerned about human life that they will not tolerate even the most remote connection to birth control that results in the ending of even the most basic forms of human life.  Innocent, defenseless lives are at stake here.

Chuck Colson says he loves his country, "but I love my God more . . . I've made up my mind---sober as that decision would have to be---that I will stand for the Lord regardless of what my state tells me."  

Rick Warren so bravely proclaimed, "I'd go to jail rather than cave in to a government mandate that violates what God commands us to do."  

Richard Land and Barrett Duke wrote an impassioned call to Christians to oppose this measure, which is an "affront to all people who are pro-life" (emphasis added).

I'm in my last semester of law school, and have been trained to impeach witnesses up on the stand because of a little something called a "prior inconsistent statement."  Our justice system is so concerned with the credibility of witnesses that we have carved out an exception to hearsay rules, which normally prohibit out-of-court statements, so that those words can be used against witnesses if they make previous inconsistent statements.  Once the witness is confronted with the inconsistency, she is impeached and her word is no longer credible.  

To me, Colson, Warren, and Land have lost credibility based on their prior inconsistent statements about their support of innocent, defenseless human lives and whether they would put the state before their faith in God.

In 2003, when the Bush administration was preparing to pre-emptively invade another country, many evangelical leaders offered their support, or at least helped justify, this military action, which resulted in over 100,000 documented Iraqi civilian deaths.  When allegations later surfaced that the U.S. military was using an especially heinous form of torture on prisoners of war, some evangelical leaders again stepped up to help justify torture.

Chuck Colson reasoned that "if a competent authority honestly believed that [torture] was the only way to get information that might save the lives of thousands, I believe he would be justified."  Yes, this is the same Chuck Colson that you just read about above, who proclaimed that while he does love his country, he wouldn't let his state get in the way of his stand for the Lord.  

Rick Warren, in 2008, performed some post-hoc rationalization for the Iraq invasion, despite the Bush administration's later-disproved reasons for invading in the first place: "whether or not they found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq is beside the point."  Yes, this is the same Rick Warren who valiantly rails against a government who makes us violate God's commands.

Richard Land stated in 2006 that the Iraq war "was just; I think it was one of the more noble things we've done."  Yes, the same Richard Land who, as we saw above, so passionately protested against government action that is an affront to people who are pro-life.

None of these men offered such an unequivocal statement in support of innocent, defenseless human lives when the U.S. decided to invade Iraq and later sanction torture.  No one called for civil disobedience when reports started pouring in of civilian deaths, or of the U.S.'s best and brightest being blown up by roadside bombs, or of those same best and brightest being driven to suicide once they're home, or of the estimated 900,000 Iraqi women who are now widows.

Such duplicity disgusts me.  I know no one is perfect and that stances change, and I'm certainly not claiming to be perfect.  But such pompous calls for civil disobedience simply make my stomach turn.  I can't help but think of the death and destruction in Iraq that was abetted by some U.S. evangelicals.  The juxtaposition doesn't sit well with me, and I have a feeling it doesn't sit well with many other people in my generation.  

If you want to make valiant, impassioned, public calls to put your faith in God before your obedience to the government, at least be consistent.  Because if not, even an inexperienced law student would have you impeached on the stand in a heartbeat.

Photo copyright 2013 by From Sovereign to Serf

9 years ago: "Those professors..."

From February 2005:

Walking down the hall during my night class’ break last week, a poster caught my eye. It was advertising a lecture about religion and law that a professor from another school is going to give. I thought, Hey, wait a minute—I had that professor at the first college I attended. He’s coming to Wheaton?

Seeing that poster—and my reaction to it—reminded me of the attitude I had toward many of my professors at my other school. In fact, I had sort of an autobiography due today for my senior capstone, and I ended up reflecting on the differences between my faith at my former and current schools. Here’s roughly what I wrote in that section of the paper:

During my first year of college, I attended a secular university. Most of the professors at my school were politically liberal, and many faculty members who identified themselves as Christ­ians tended to water down Christianity to some sort of bland philosophy, afraid to use the word “God” and to refer to Jesus. Therefore, I immediately in­volved myself in two Christian campus organ­izations, one the largest parachurch organization in the world, the other affiliated with the largest denomination in the country.

I still consider as dear friends many people I met by being involved in these organiza­tions, so I do not mean to criticize any of them as people. I think it is safe to say, though, that both groups tended to have a “those-evil-professors-will-taint-your-mind” mentality toward the university. They were simply diametrically opposed to the university, and the prevailing attitude was that of blanket rejection of anything not explicitly conservative, evangelical Christ­ian. I kept my same mindset from high school. No one challenged it; in fact, they encouraged it. In our Bible studies and Friday lunches, we were taught sys­tem­atic, care­fully laid-out answers to the criticisms that “those professors” were going to level against our faith. When I read Noll’s description of anti-intellectualism, I have a pretty clear pic­ture thanks to those experiences.

So, I hunkered down in political and theological conservatism in my first year of col­lege, holding tightly to my beliefs. I was certain that I was biblical and right, and my faith grew into a reaction­ary one. I sought no real dialogue with professors or students who were not Christians—and I could have had great discussions with my friends there, some of which were atheist, gay, Wiccan, and many of which were wounded by the church. Instead, things were black or white, good or bad, Christian or non-Christian, a characteristic that my later experience studying anthropology has helped me to see as unhealthy to my faith. 

...so can you see why it took me by surprise to see that one of “those evil professors” is going to give a lecture here? Before, mired in my binarisms, I immediately labeled as non-Christian anyone who didn’t fit my conception of “Christian” (meaning conservative, evangelical...Republican). Therefore, I blocked off any learning from people I had labeled, building up my defenses so my faith couldn’t be jeopardized. I wonder what I missed out on during my first year of school.

I also discussed in my paper something that I find kind of...funny. I grew more con­servative when I was studying at a secular university, but when I transferred to an evangelical Christian institution—one that has produced the likes of Jim Elliot, John Piper, Josh McDowell, mega-church found­ers, and a Dubya speechwriter—I began to question if I want to be an evan­gel­ical. Some family members have even commented on this, wondering, since they “sent me up to that Christian school,” how I turned into the dirty L-word (funny, I disagree with liberals on many issues). I suppose it’s easy to see why I “hunkered down” at my former school, so to speak, considering the attitude that some fostered there. But I don’t really know any reasons why I have changed since I came to my current school, because students here have experiences that run the gamut. Probably because I didn’t feel the need to label professors here, thus not building up my defenses against any brainwashing…

Having realized that I may have missed out on a lot things as a result of labeling, and also having been labeled by others (mostly because of the college I attend), I hope I'm more careful in the future not to do so.

 

9 years ago: Wrecking Ball

No, not the Miley Cyrus song. :) From January 30, 2005:

 

Had the privilege of visiting LaSalle Street Church today...came home with some great thoughts:

The Beatitudes. Do we ever see an inscription like “blessed are the poor, the meek, the peacemakers” on any of our buildings? Think if those words were written at powerful places like Washington D.C. It seems there aren’t too many people in Washington who are genuinely concerned with the poor, the meek, or those who seek peace. Isn’t it funny how some campaign for the Ten Commandments to be displayed in public places, like courtrooms? Sure, it can be easy not to murder or steal, but what about caring for the poor? What about peacemaking? It seems that things would get a little uncomfortable—a little too close for comfort—if we decided to so publicly display the Beatitudes. They are a wrecking ball for our lives. If we consider the idea that Jesus may have really meant what he said, what kind of destruction does that mean in terms of how we live our lives?

Matthew 5:3-12
3 Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4 Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted.
5 Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth.
6 Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled.
7 Blessed are the merciful, for they will receive mercy.
8 Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.
9 Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.
10 Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
11 Blessed are you when people revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. 12 Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

Literal six-day creationism is an identity marker

A couple of years ago, I wrote here about how many watertight, insular beliefs in evangelicalism actually serve as identity markers. Last night, Bill Nye and Ken Ham debated about evolutionary theory and creationism, which was a great example of how literal six-day creationism often serves as an identity marker for many white North American evangelicals.

In the context of Michael Pearl, whom I used as an example in my prior blog post, Pearl sets up "biblical chastisement," or physical punishment of children, as an ironclad "biblical" belief:  "The people who condemn biblical chastisement do not believe the Bible." He equates his system of discipline with Scripture, so anyone who disagrees with Pearl's practices disagrees with the Bible. 

Throwing down the gauntlet in this way is hostile to disagreement. Using the "biblical" label, Pearl and his followers equate his teachings to the very Word of God, so it becomes difficult for other professed Bible-believers to oppose him.  

Elevating your belief, whether it be physical discipline of children or literal six-day creationism, with the Word of God is not the only tactic that some Christians use. Another common tactic is the persecution trope. Believing you are a victim of a sinful majority is an excellent way to dismiss opponents.

 

The majority of the scientific community may have convincing evidence against your position, but if you are in the minority and are mocked by the mainstream, then surely this is a sign that your beliefs are being persecuted!

 

Framing the issue in this manner makes disagreement from within nearly dangerous. Equating an interpretation of the Bible with the Bible itself, and automatically portraying divergent beliefs as persecution, have largely formed evangelical identity. Thus, those who don't want to be alienated from a community they love face high stakes if they disagree.  

Diverging from your church's core beliefs is often a scary, emotional experience.  I have genuinely wondered if I'm going to hell, and whether my disagreement simply means I've been duped by the secular, sinful "culture at large." 

 

David Rattigan, who has great resources on leaving fundamentalism and evangelicalism, shared an essay by P. James Bowen on leaving a watertight, insular faith, and I see much of these rhetorical moves at play. Bowen describes his departure as painful and lonely. Although alienated from evangelicalism, he was reluctant to leave:

[The thought of leaving my evangelical home] terrified me. I still wanted to belong. No matter what I thought about charismatics and conservatives now, I still couldn’t bring myself to break away. I had always been one. They were my friends, my family. Where else was there? 

Once Bowen accepted he no longer belonged in evangelicalism, he realized his disagreements were often not theological, but a matter of personal identity. He became ensnared in a "fight between my desire to belong and my inability to belong."

Many white North American evangelicals (often unintentionally) view disagreement with evangelical beliefs as tantamount to heresy, because evangelicalism's identity has been grounded in unwavering "biblical" interpretations of Scripture and portraying dissenters as sneering liberals.  

Although the past decade has shown much promise, there's still little wiggle room for us questioners, even for those like Bowen who have no theological qualms.  I like Rattigan's approach in his FAQ section. He's not abandoning truth claims, but rather acknowledging that many beliefs "are open to being thrashed out, tested, verified, debated and evaluated." When Rattigan makes theological claims, he's honest about their "tentative, provisional and subjective nature." He doesn't insist others accept his interpretation, "or that there will be divine consequences (i.e. punishment)" for those who disagree.

That evangelicalism's anti-evolution stance is actually an identity marker--rather than a high-stakes "must" that can't be separated from the gospel--is a freeing, healthy realization. There are no divine consequences if I don't toe the line. 

So, if you are a young evangelical who listened to the debate last night and want to look in to Nye's claims, I encourage you to do so. If anyone questions your fidelity to Scripture or your faith commitment, I encourage you to consider a belief in a literal six-day creation as an identity marker of your particular faith community, rather than as an ironclad biblical truth from which you cannot waver. Feel free to flesh out, test, verify, debate, and evaluate both Nye and Ham's claims. All truth is God's truth, friend.

Race, suburbia, and the missional movement

I guest posted over at Zach Hoag's blog as part of his series on the missional church. I critique the whiteness of the North American missional movement, as well as its historical amnesia. Black churches were missional long before Lesslie Newbigin published his first work. Check out my article here. There are some really great guest posts over there, so be sure to check them all out!

4 years ago: Armageddonist absolutism

From November 2009:

Once again school has taken over my life, but I wanted to share a great Sightings email from early October, "Evangelicaldom," by Martin Marty.  The topic was evangelicals' involvement in politics, and it made me realize why it is so difficult to have a civil conversation with politically conservative Christians.  

Marty references an article in the Los Angeles Times that describes the "absolutist style of religious fundamentalism": 

Those who oppose the religification of politics may think all they have to do is change tactics, but they are sadly, tragically mistaken. They can never win, because for the political fundamentalists, this isn’t political jousting, this is Armageddon.  With stakes like that, they will not lose, and there is nothing democrats – small ‘d’ and capital ‘D’ – can do about it. 

This struck a chord with me, because it is really difficult to reason with people who are truly convinced that their political stances have the seal of approval from God, and moving even a little bit from their stances would be sinful.  It would have negative eternal consequences.  How can you have a productive conversation with someone so set in her ways like this?  With so much "at stake," these Armageddonists are not budging.  Political/fiscal conservatives are geniuses for aligning with them.  Geniuses.

Systems and privilege redux: U.S. Christian conferences

Earlier this week, Rachel Held Evans pointed out the absurd lack of women at The Nines, an online conference that featured only 4 women speakers out of over 100 total. Jonathan Merritt later chimed in with a look at a number of U.S. conferences' severe gender disparity.

While many of the responses to Evans' and Merritt's critiques were derailing, silencing, and downright condescending, one type of response in particular caught my attention because I believe it's instructive with regard to systems and privilege. Many were quick to point out that conference planners are well-meaning people and don't intend to specifically exclude women. A common refrain was that critics don't really know what goes on behind the scenes in choosing speakers.

I take issue with this response, just as I did last year with Church Relevance's Top 200 Ministry Blogs list.

Critical race theory exposes racism in social systems and groups. Its most basic tenet is that race is an integral part of social organizations, and racism is an  institutionalized, ingrained feature of social systems. Critical race theory holds that everyone in a social system furthers that system through social practices, reproducing the power and prestige of the system. Those with the most power and prestige are the most privileged, which means they have the most advantage over others, even if this advantage was passed down through generations. 

Systems tend to be affected by inertia. Most systems, by their very design, are resistant to changes to their usual state. It is exceedingly difficult to push against the norms inside the system. The system itself does the work for the privileged individual.

Here, the U.S. Christian conferences system works in such a way that the system discriminates on behalf of its individual members against women, LGBTQ people, and people of color, while favoring white, straight men. The individuals themselves (i.e. the conference planners) do not have to be racist or sexist in order to perpetuate inequality. In fact, most participants in a system would vehemently deny that they intend to focus exclusively on white, straight men. One does not have to be a blatant racist, sexist, or homophobe to organize a conference consisting almost exclusively of white, straight, men - the system works it out for you.

I asked last year after Church Relevance's list was released, and I'll ask it again: what are people with the most power and prestige doing to make a conscious effort to ensure that the voices of women, LGBTQ people, and people of color are heard? Jarrod McKenna encourages men not to just blog about it, but act. Turn down conference invites if you see that women are not fully represented. I would add - turn down publishing deals and other offers and suggest a woman in your place. (Cue the refrain here that feminists hate men and seek "reverse sexism"...)

If you are a white, straight, Christian man, please take a look at the blogs you read and the people you follow on Twitter. Do they look like you? Take a look at the books you read on theology and ministry. Do their authors look like you? Take a look at the conferences you attend. Do their speakers look like you? Again, if so, would you be willing to join with me and fight the inertia?