Whenever I hand a test back to a class, I invoke the "Lantzer 24 hour Rule" which states that no matter what grade they got, I will not talk to them about their tests until the next day. This allows them to re-read their answers not just in light of their grade but also my comments and to actually stop and think about what it is they've just gotten back. I think that is a good rule in life, not just because I often make snap judgements myself, but because a little reflection usually isn't a bad thing.
As its been over a day since the Supreme Court of the United States struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act, I've had some time to reflect on what it means when it comes to the Mainline. In large part, I've been thinking about a question one of my students asked of me in my American Religious History class this past spring, right after SCOTUS heard arguments in the case: He asked if the High Court overturned DOMA, did that signal the demise of the Religious Right and the ascent of the Religious Left? As I've thought about it, my answer then was fairly accurate, so I thought I'd expand on it, and share it here.
To begin with, I said, there is much more (despite what some will tell you) to this debate than just religion and morality (as important as it is to some of those involved). Yes, Religious conservatives support DOMA and the traditional definition of marriage being between one man and one woman. And yes, many Religious liberals are arguing against it (more often than not talking about God's love for all humanity and how homosexual marriages can be a reflection of that divine love). But that being said, there are two other areas that are much more significant. The first is politics. Here, we aren't talking about national trends in culture or the make up of Congress, rather the political make up of the High Court. While there is a 5-4 split in Republican/Democratic appointees; on any given issue a coalition of justices can form that can alter that balance (longtime court watchers have long ago concluded that Justice Kennedy enjoys that title and the power that comes with it, see here for example). The other area is law. Not only DOMA itself (a bipartisan law, crafted when Bill Clinton was president), but also complications that have, can, and do arise when non-married partners either break up or have something catastrophic happen (a health care emergency for example) -- legal issues that aren't confined to just homosexual relationships, but have become increasingly prominent in cases over the past decade or so.
Thinking about that first part of my answer now, I should have gone on and done something "political sciencey" and just predicted that DOMA would be overturned. But I'm an historian, so I didn't. But that wasn't the end of my student's question, he had also asked about the ramifications of a DOMA ruling for religious Americans. Already, within that first 24 hours, articles have already appeared from the conservative end of the spectrum (see Christianity Today's excellent editorial here) about what comes next, as well as messages of joy and triumph from those more on the liberal end of the religious (and dare I say probably political) end of the spectrum (see here for what one UCC/Congregational Church did, and here for what the Episcopal Church has said).
But, was the ruling a "victory" for the Religious Left? While it might be spun as such, I would say it was more of a political victory than it was a religious triumph. My reason for saying so boils down to the fact that if we are looking for the origins of this issue as a reform, it did not originate within either the UCC or Episcopal denominations. Was it reflected in those (and other old Seven Sisters Mainline) denominations? Absolutely. But it was just that, a reflection of something that was going on within the wider culture. It is a case of denominations being influenced by culture, not one of denominational influence on that culture. For conservatives (political and religious alike) the ruling is more apt to be seen as further proof of secularization in American society and within (at least some) of America's churches. What does it mean for the new Mainline that I talk about in the last chapter of my book? Well, for that, we will have to wait and see!
That is my thinking some 24 hours on. At the time of the student question though, I raised another point. And that is about marriage itself. Conservatives (religious and political) were defending DOMA. But why? Why were religious people so invested in how the State defined marriage? Perhaps we should be asking why/how the State got that power to begin with. What, historically, had been the difference between "holy matrimony" and "civil marriage" and when/how had those two things been conflated. If, I asked, the Church had (whether by its own will or by the passage of time) allowed the State to take the lead on dealing with the legality of unions, did we have then or now a Church/State issue on our hands? In that same vein, what were to make of divorce (both within the Church, and in the laws of the State)? Was the Church (writ large, and taking into account it is made up individuals who are imperfect) doing a good job when it came to marriage teaching/counseling in general -- considering the oft cited statistic that half of all marriages (between heterosexuals) end in divorce? If DOMA was repealed I asked, and a given church/denomination refused to perform a wedding ceremony for religious reasons (even if the State approved) because the couple in question was homosexual, could that couple then sue for discrimination? Conservatives argued that repealing DOMA would be a slippery slope, that might lead to calls for legalizing polygamy (for example). Were they right? Can we be sure that they are wrong?
My student didn't have any answers to those questions. Neither did, nor do, I. And quite frankly, neither does anyone else. Despite the joyous bell ringing in some circles and the lamentations (or even conviction that the U.S. is now headed to Hell in a hand basket) in others that the DOMA decision prompted, we mere mortals don't know what the future holds. Nor should any of us, Right or Left, old or new Mainline, assume that this decision is the end all be all. As the aforementioned Christianity Today editorial points out, Supreme Court decisions rarely settle any cultural issue (the debate over abortion hasn't exactly ended). And as my fellow NYU author, Prof. Suzanna Danuta Walters, notes here, there are other issues out there that are bigger and even more important thatn marriage equality (she points out HIV/AIDS as one example). Indeed, I'd put the on going IRS audit story and growing NSA leak story as bigger domestic issues (both for the near and long term) than the DOMA decision this summer (the IRS audit of conservative groups has much larger implications both politically and in potential religious liberty issues than does the demise of DOMA I think). At least so far. In the meantime, there is nothing wrong with reflections and asking questions, and we will see where these and other issues take the Mainline -- both old and new.
Showing posts with label Christianity Today. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Christianity Today. Show all posts
Thursday, June 27, 2013
Tuesday, May 28, 2013
The Emerging Emergents
One of my professors in grad school told us that we should always remember that our papers for him (and eventually the books/articles we would write) would never be "done." When we turn them in or submit them for publication, we are simply ending our work for the time being, and opening things up for conversation and discussion. We are never "finished" in other words.
Having published two books and lots of articles since that class, I can attest that in many ways it is a true statement. No matter how comprehensive the research, there are always going to be sources that are missed. No matter how well you discuss something, there always seems to be something else (often times new, sometimes derived from what it is you've published) that you wish you had included/known about. And no matter what your bibliography looks like, it never seems to fail that the moment you publish something (or send back the proofs to the editor), a new book or article lands on your desk that would have been awesome (and maybe even transformed) what you just considered to be "done."
As we enter the second year since the publication of The Mainline, perhaps the most glaring thing I wish that I had included was discussion of the Emerging movement. It is not because I had not heard about it, I had. It is not that I had not thought about including them, I did. It is just that by the time I really listened and thought, the manuscript was at a place where I didn't know where the emergents would fit into the narrative. And, to be honest, when you are in the last stage of manuscript writing (and you know the next time you get something from the press it will be proofs), tackling a whole new body of literature for a few paragraphs really doesn't seem worth it. Or, at least it didn't to me at the time!
That being said, if there has been one thing nagging me about the final form The Mainline took (even if it hasn't been something that has been raised by reviewers or readers, at least not to my knowledge) it is that the Emergents didn't make it into the final product. For those of you who have never heard of the term, let me sum up the movement in very broad terms (while also pointing you to an excellent article by Scot McKnight here from Christianity Today). The Emergent Church movement seeks to find the best way(s) to "do Church" in a post modern world, and its focus tends to be on how to live their faith in the world.
To some, the Emergent movement has become the chief opponent of the Religious Right, surpassing attempts by the old Mainline to form a sort of counter Religious Left, by appealing to evangelicals directly (espescially younger ones) who grew up within conservative congregations. These disgruntled (?) or maybe displeased Christians have grown tired of the cultural wars of their parents, the desire for political power and influence by some church members, and feel let down by such engagement because they feel that such actions really aren't what their faith is about. That is perhaps true for some members of the Emergent community, but hopes that such a movement will fit seamlessly into liberal politics are bound to be ultimately frustrating (many Emergents, for example, remain opposed to abortion), and just as disappointing (after all, being active in the political sphere is what caused some of these believers to depart from the Religious Right to begin with, remember).
If there is one thing that the Emergents do offer my take on the new Mainline, it would be to remember that American Christianity is deeply complex -- much more so than it is often given credit for -- and not as easily captured by labels (Religious Right, Religious Left, Emergent) as we in academia (and many in the general public) would like to think. And if that is all there was to the Emergent movement, that would probably be where this blog post (and any additional material that might find its way into a second edition of The Mainline) would end. But, it isn't. Because while Brian McLaren is perhaps one of the best known proponents of the Emerging Movement in the United States, it was another pastor (or now I guess, former pastor) who really brought the movement to the attention of Americans outside evangelical circles: Rob Bell.
Bell is the former megachurch pastor from Michigan, who turned away from the pulpit after both a spiritual awakening/conflict (depending on how you look at it) and the firestorm of both praise and debate of his 2011 book Love Wins (in which he questions the existence of an eternal Hell). While this post is not a critique of either the book or the theology behind Bell's stance on matters of faith (if you want to read some of those, take a look at this, or this, or this), I raise Bell because he is perhaps the best example of the biggest problem I see with where Emergent theology fits within the scope of American Religious History, and that is post modernism.
Like McKnight, I agree that the emphasis on post modernism by some Emergents, and their critics, can be to much of a good/bad thing. But if a bedrock of Emergent theology is that we can never know for sure, that truth is an abstraction (more or less), or that it makes us uncomfortable to think that there might be a Hell (where people we know might end up if they are not saved), then this flies in the face of not only what the majority of Christians in America have and do believe right up to the present, but also what Christianity has taught since its emergence. While Christianity might be diverse in its application/manifestations, while its form has (and probably will continue to) changed, the rejection of truth seemingly has little pace within the Christian experience. Indeed, if post modernism is correct about truth, how can it be true! Twisting the word "truth" to mean the same thing as "opinion" or "belief" (such as "that is my truth") is a further undercutting of the very concept that somethings are right or wrong (your "truth" might be that 2+2=5, but that doesn't make your arithmetic correct). And if there is a Hell, its existence should make Christians uncomfortable (not because they believe that God cannot abide by sin, and those who remain unrepentant must be banished from His holy presence) but rather because it is their holy duty to bring the Good News to the lost and unsaved.
While I'm going to keep thinking about such things (perhaps for that second edition of The Mainline), I'm also going to say based on the first edition, that if the Emergent movement follows the post modern path, it is likely to run out of steam. If, on the other hand, it serves to remind us of the complexity of American Christianity (and Global Christianity as well), then it might just have a place at the table for years to come.
Having published two books and lots of articles since that class, I can attest that in many ways it is a true statement. No matter how comprehensive the research, there are always going to be sources that are missed. No matter how well you discuss something, there always seems to be something else (often times new, sometimes derived from what it is you've published) that you wish you had included/known about. And no matter what your bibliography looks like, it never seems to fail that the moment you publish something (or send back the proofs to the editor), a new book or article lands on your desk that would have been awesome (and maybe even transformed) what you just considered to be "done."
As we enter the second year since the publication of The Mainline, perhaps the most glaring thing I wish that I had included was discussion of the Emerging movement. It is not because I had not heard about it, I had. It is not that I had not thought about including them, I did. It is just that by the time I really listened and thought, the manuscript was at a place where I didn't know where the emergents would fit into the narrative. And, to be honest, when you are in the last stage of manuscript writing (and you know the next time you get something from the press it will be proofs), tackling a whole new body of literature for a few paragraphs really doesn't seem worth it. Or, at least it didn't to me at the time!
That being said, if there has been one thing nagging me about the final form The Mainline took (even if it hasn't been something that has been raised by reviewers or readers, at least not to my knowledge) it is that the Emergents didn't make it into the final product. For those of you who have never heard of the term, let me sum up the movement in very broad terms (while also pointing you to an excellent article by Scot McKnight here from Christianity Today). The Emergent Church movement seeks to find the best way(s) to "do Church" in a post modern world, and its focus tends to be on how to live their faith in the world.
To some, the Emergent movement has become the chief opponent of the Religious Right, surpassing attempts by the old Mainline to form a sort of counter Religious Left, by appealing to evangelicals directly (espescially younger ones) who grew up within conservative congregations. These disgruntled (?) or maybe displeased Christians have grown tired of the cultural wars of their parents, the desire for political power and influence by some church members, and feel let down by such engagement because they feel that such actions really aren't what their faith is about. That is perhaps true for some members of the Emergent community, but hopes that such a movement will fit seamlessly into liberal politics are bound to be ultimately frustrating (many Emergents, for example, remain opposed to abortion), and just as disappointing (after all, being active in the political sphere is what caused some of these believers to depart from the Religious Right to begin with, remember).
If there is one thing that the Emergents do offer my take on the new Mainline, it would be to remember that American Christianity is deeply complex -- much more so than it is often given credit for -- and not as easily captured by labels (Religious Right, Religious Left, Emergent) as we in academia (and many in the general public) would like to think. And if that is all there was to the Emergent movement, that would probably be where this blog post (and any additional material that might find its way into a second edition of The Mainline) would end. But, it isn't. Because while Brian McLaren is perhaps one of the best known proponents of the Emerging Movement in the United States, it was another pastor (or now I guess, former pastor) who really brought the movement to the attention of Americans outside evangelical circles: Rob Bell.
Bell is the former megachurch pastor from Michigan, who turned away from the pulpit after both a spiritual awakening/conflict (depending on how you look at it) and the firestorm of both praise and debate of his 2011 book Love Wins (in which he questions the existence of an eternal Hell). While this post is not a critique of either the book or the theology behind Bell's stance on matters of faith (if you want to read some of those, take a look at this, or this, or this), I raise Bell because he is perhaps the best example of the biggest problem I see with where Emergent theology fits within the scope of American Religious History, and that is post modernism.
Like McKnight, I agree that the emphasis on post modernism by some Emergents, and their critics, can be to much of a good/bad thing. But if a bedrock of Emergent theology is that we can never know for sure, that truth is an abstraction (more or less), or that it makes us uncomfortable to think that there might be a Hell (where people we know might end up if they are not saved), then this flies in the face of not only what the majority of Christians in America have and do believe right up to the present, but also what Christianity has taught since its emergence. While Christianity might be diverse in its application/manifestations, while its form has (and probably will continue to) changed, the rejection of truth seemingly has little pace within the Christian experience. Indeed, if post modernism is correct about truth, how can it be true! Twisting the word "truth" to mean the same thing as "opinion" or "belief" (such as "that is my truth") is a further undercutting of the very concept that somethings are right or wrong (your "truth" might be that 2+2=5, but that doesn't make your arithmetic correct). And if there is a Hell, its existence should make Christians uncomfortable (not because they believe that God cannot abide by sin, and those who remain unrepentant must be banished from His holy presence) but rather because it is their holy duty to bring the Good News to the lost and unsaved.
While I'm going to keep thinking about such things (perhaps for that second edition of The Mainline), I'm also going to say based on the first edition, that if the Emergent movement follows the post modern path, it is likely to run out of steam. If, on the other hand, it serves to remind us of the complexity of American Christianity (and Global Christianity as well), then it might just have a place at the table for years to come.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)