Correcting Distorted and
Oversimplified Images
of the “Christian Religious Right”
and Its Opponents
Before I get to other issues, I want to try to correct some oversimplifications from the start.
Critics of the “religious right” come from many perspectives, Christian and non-Christian, conservative and non-conservative.
From conservative Christians and within the Right:
It is not only liberals like John Shelby Spong who argue that the “religious right” is attempting to steal Christianity or manipulate Christians. Some of the critics of the “religious right” are conservative Christians, themselves. This group is generally underestimated. Also, among those professing to be born-again Christians, a significant number do not identify as “conservative” politically. According to the Born Again pollster, Barna, 42% of Born Again Christians voted for Al Gore and Born Again Christians who are not evangelical are more likely to be aligned with the Democratic Party (40%) than the Republican Party (35%). And among Fundamentalists, Evangelicals, Pentecostals, Charismatics, who despite differences tend to share similar conservative moral standards and religious values, you will find people who are considerably distressed by the Christian Coalition, John Ashcroft, President G.W. Bush, harassment and violence toward homosexuals, and anti-abortion extremists. Some of this results in their support for political positions that are more moderate or even directly opposed to those of the “religious right”, although they are religiously conservative themselves. Many otherwise conservative Catholics are wary of the religious right because of a history of anti-Catholicism in this country. Yet some of the other Christian critics of the “religious right” include Identity Christian groups like the Aryan Nations, which is racist and violent. Other critics include economic conservatives who hold moderate social views, whatever their personal beliefs and approach to religion, but these “social moderates” have been put on a leash within the Republican party, or have been marginalized as Libertarians. And we should not forget those who truly are moderates and independents.
Others:
Much is made of the “liberal media”, but in my view the culture of “the media” as a whole was always more hysterical than political, never really liberal or wedded to a particular politics; if anything the bias seems to be that of the educated with upper middle class sympathies and social ties, tending to be out of touch with working class people and union issues, as well as certain religious sentiments. Religious opposition to the “religious right” has been caricaturized as the liberal or radical “religious left”; this image downplays many moderates and mainstream religionists, along with the religious conservatives who for whatever reason do not endorse specific conservative social agendas that are marketed to religious conservatives by the political powers that be. Most Christians belong to mainstream churches, which tend to hold moderate social/political positions. By contrast, the Christian Coalition and the “Moral Majority” spoke for a minority of Christians in America. Your “average joe” whether Christian or not, is a critic of the religious right. It isn't just liberals and non-Christians who question the vision of Jerry Fallwell, Pat Robertson, Operation Rescue, or Ashcroft... but this should not come as a shock, though it might very well seem to be one of those “well, yes, I guess so, but funny how I haven't considered that very much” sort of ideas if you've been immersed in either the mainstream media or conservative Christian culture and don't happen to be an “average joe” critic of the “religious right” yourself.
The main basis of the issue between the “religious right” and others, goes beyond the slogans and catch-words.
Criticism of the “Religious Right”
In the eyes of many on the “religious right,” their critics and opponents are in cultural warfare against Christianity, against Christ, or else their opponents are seen as naturally enough pawns of Satan since they are un-redeemed and sinful, non-Christian. But it is the “religious right”, rather than its critics and opponents, that tends to view the issue in terms of a culture war against Christianity. And as mentioned above, the reality is that many critics of religious politics are themselves Christians or have beloved Christian family members and friends. Do many Christians, even emphatic conservative Christians, really feel that their own Christianity is being attacked because they simply have to deal with others who have different views. Do many conservative Christians really feel under the gun simply because the overall culture doesn’t always presume that everyone is Christian? The tensions and cultural struggles need to be looked at more seriously, to understand what the real issues are, and to avoid exaggerations and caricatures. For some, such contact with non-Christians is seen as so contaminating that it forms sufficient motivation in and of itself for cultural war or total separation from the mainstream, but this cannot explain the broader conservative Christian political movement.
Most of the opposition and criticism religious people receive personally, comes from within their own family, and also from co-workers and neighbors that they may respect and like. Religious conservatives don’t typically get worked up that their well meaning, cordial neighbor or cousin is in cultural warfare against them. The charge of anti-Christian influence or cultural warfare is usually unleashed on more distant people who aren’t known personally, on institutions, celebrities, Hollywood, and politicians, while one’s loved friends, neighbors, or family are given leeway, prayed for so they get saved and forgiven, etc. Even when such close people are considered deluded by Satan, the venom considered appropriate when fighting others under demonic sway is usually avoided. After all, no one wants to see a loved one condemned or blamed for evil. People either have faith in a certain religious idea or do not, regardless of anyone else's wishes, and deep down religious people usually know that different people just tend to see things differently. When the more serious issues are at stake, this is a cause for worry and concern, but usually also one of faith in a merciful God’s efforts to give loved one’s every possible chance.
Reaction to the Media
In comparison to continuing personal relationships, the TV channel can be easily changed or turned off, and movies or books can be easily avoided, relieving an immediate cause of irritation at whatever impersonal or generalized challenge is presented by mainstream culture. Yet spokespeople for the “religious right” show little charity, mercy, tolerance, or hope is offered to “the media” and its representatives, the very human people who report, investigate, act, sing, and write… people with families and often a Christian relative praying for their wellbeing. Whether one's position is left or right, religious or secular, the media and its personalities are easy targets when they become irritating, simply because they are easily clicked off, they play roles and easily become symbols, and because we do not immerse ourselves in their daily lives in a way that helps us to see them as just like other people we know.
The Social Challenge
On all sides of religious issues critical challenges could be handled better. It really should not be a surprise that people will argue against conservative values or particular Christian beliefs, just as conservative Christians will argue against people's lack of those values and beliefs. It is no surprise to me that certain outspoken critics find spiritual people to be idiotic or insane by default, just as many outspoken religionists believe that unbelievers and various sorts of sinners by default are deluded or evil and go to Hell.
In contradiction to claims that Christians are being persecuted in America, Christians are not being physically threatened or beaten for being Christian, are having no difficulty selling many books and records, raising up Christian Bookstores, handing out leaflets, yelling on street corners, getting politicians to invoke Jesus or God or Christian values in public, and promoting their views on Christian radio stations. Christians do not face the sort of harassment, vandalism, unfair treatment, and violence that many homosexuals, Wiccans, and Jews continue to face by extremists. It is more that Christians no longer have an informal guarantee of having their position considered privileged or automatically respected. They more often get challenged in public, by classmates, and by coworkers. Challenges are at times unfair on either side.
There are certainly social environments where Fundamentalism or very conservative Christianity is considered very unfavorably. And people feel more free to express their critical opinions, even with snobbery and rudeness. Does anyone wonder that this makes conservative Christians uncomfortable? Depending on the region, forum, or political environment, a double standard, bias, or inconsistent policy may work for them or against them, as people struggle with how to handle religion in public life. They cannot expect to always come out on top, or even respected. Whatever frustration and anger they may have over this, Christians do not expect to be able to blame “secular humanist” culture or non-Christians on Judgment Day for any of their failings or for any loss of faith they may suffer by being challenged. Yet anxieties regarding their own spiritual failings, and the condition of the world, can significantly motivate desires to see culture reinforce their values more, for the world to more actively support their religious values and standards, and also to help their loved ones get saved.
Distinguishing Between Conservatives and Extremists
A lot of tension arises because the culture in America is so very modern and secular, and many conservative Christians want to change that landscape. It is important here to distinguish between conservative and radical or extremist Christians. Although there are extremists who interact with, inter-penetrate, and attempt to manipulate and use, conservative Christians and the Religious Right in general, and although extremists may pose as conservatives, there are significant differences. Conservatives tend to want to hold onto the aspects of culture that are more congruent with their own values and beliefs, they want to conserve the good of the past, and what they see as traditional values. A true conservative in America would tend to appreciate the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, rather than want to chuck it out in favor of radical theocratic visions. The genuine conservative, as opposed to the radical or extremist, does not want vigilante actions, extreme authoritarianism, heavy handed police tactics, or a total breakdown and reconstruction of society.
Extremist Christians can be severely critical of the “religious right,” Christian conservatives, and the Republicans, considering them to be sell-outs, delusional, or even agents of Satan. Other extremists appeal to “conservative values,” but any so-called “conservative” that wants Christians to seize power politically, glorifies authoritarian Christian rule, and wants to run the whole world to route out heathenism by human efforts is no conservative, but is rather some sort of extremist, radical, or fascist. Some on the “religious right” teeter between conservative and extremist politics. Some are militant and use terrorist tactics. Yet others separate and withdraw into a bunker, running an extremist group in isolation, stockpiling weapons in preparation for the attack of the Anti-Christ, but wanting to withdraw rather than to start a fight. Others are extremists in religion but do not stockpile weapons or set up an army or prepare to fight physically. None of these are simply conservatives, if the word conservative is to have any meaning. And yet, these extremists can be described as taking the conservative opposition to various aspects of mainstream culture several steps further.
Christian Struggle Against Mainstream Culture
Keeping in mind the spectrum of political tactics and the differences between conservatives and extremists, it should be noted that they are the ones who are particularly fighting a cultural war over religious issues (albeit with differences in vision and tactics.) Yes both the religious right and their opponents are fighting over cultural issues, but I say it is the religious right that is particularly fighting a cultural war because most non-Christians, Christians who are not quite so separatist, those who do not mind interacting with those who disagree and welcome two-way criticism, Christians who are not Fundamentalist, do not tend to feel they have to fight either the mainstream or Christianity, they can simply go with the flow and attempt to keep what they have gained should anyone threaten to roll things back. Surely people are working to continue transforming culture in a vision that differs significantly from that of the “religious right,” but they are building on the currents of change that have been shaping the mainstream culture for some time. In contrast, many conservative and all extremist Christians are indeed fighting against the cultural changes that began over a century ago, changes that are now fairly well established. The cultural changes were started by impersonal forces before any of us were born. Reversing the changes involves a struggle against the flow, while attempting to build on established changes involves less of a struggle because it is more with the flow. Especially now, the critics of the “religious right” are not opposed to our current culture; they see themselves as resisting the attacks of the “religious right” who do say it is a cultural war and do see themselves as fighting against our current culture.
The 1960’s can not be blamed for the changes that happened as the country became more industrialized and technological, for the flights to the cities for jobs at the end of the 1800’s, and changing attitudes that had their roots far earlier in Mesmerism, the seances of the 1880’s, the flappers of the 1920’s, and the Beatniks of the 1950’s. No single movement or type of person is responsible for the state of our culture today. Hippies or Liberals didn’t just invent our world, it developed with the help of lots of people who are now dead, and some of the reactions and injustices on one side fed the rebellions on the other. And there are not just two sides – it is very multi-faceted. In the 1920’s many immigrants from eastern Europe came over, bringing more Catholics; a lot of the people who moved from South to North were black farmers and share croppers who needed jobs in places like Detroit. College professors and journalists did not cause all that. Dealing with many different types of views, intersections of different cultures, understanding different life situations, has lead to more flexible views of the world associated with our current culture. To entirely and radically stop and reverse that could require a very rigid apartheid or caste sort of system, rigid segregation, radical changes in immigration policy, violent struggle, or attempts at racial/cultural genocide. And yet to hold on to a tradition, to represent values that still have life and meaning, is a valid and understandable undertaking. In and of itself, there is much merit in resisting what are seen as negative cultural tendencies or holding out for higher standards and values.
Many religionists, however, want to more radically overturn the secular influences in culture and create a more Christian culture in America, to bring back the assumption that people are Christians, to reinstate various laws, attempt to recreate the atmosphere of a previous time or to invent a new Christian culture for the future. As with any such vision of what is the most desirable sort of culture, it is the question of how such change would be achieved and what about those who are of a different culture or religion, that is controversial. And selective memory and naive idealism plays a part in such visions on the left as well as the right.
Some things to put this in context: Fundamentalism began in the early 1900’s as a reaction to modernism and critical trends in Biblical scholarship. The movement built upon the energy of revivals that had begun in the 1800's. Fundamentalism and Pentecostalism were small movements much more on the outside the mainstream of Christianity until the last couple of decades. Most people within mainstream culture today are not specifically fighting Christianity or even conservative values, but certain Christians are trying to erode and fight various aspects of modernism and modern values. Other Christians and non-Christians are accepting where we now are socially as the starting point, as the world we happen to live in and must accept and deal with, trying to see it with its positives as well as its negatives. The conservative Christian minority (like many other minorities) wants to be approved of and be seen as the moral voice of America, to have their values and mores be the most respected position and the assumed starting point and standard, and to have their culture reflected more in the culture at large. Some of this is because they do not want to be tempted or lead away from their cultural values and mores when they go out in the community at large, and many believe such a culture would be best for everyone, not just Christians.
The Struggle Against the Religious Right
In comparison, many critics say that the basis of the conflict with the “religious right” is the issue of separation of church and state. But the idea of “separation of church and state” is an abstract principle, and people don't live day to day in terms of abstractions. And when people get worked up, any abstractions involved tend to represent concrete situations. The concrete reality is that though many fear what might happen if that separation of church and state is eroded, they do not fear this constantly, day by day, either. Being forced to go to church, to have to pretend to be a conservative Christian, etc., to get by in life, is a reality for the children of conservative Christians, or for some people in very small towns or certain schools and other atypical social environments, where social pressures may make people feel they must keep up appearances, but for the majority of people in America these concerns are far from the immediate reality. The fear is also a fear of the future, one that has not been created yet. Is this what people are really worked up about when criticizing the religious right? In some sense the off-the-cuff comments about extreme Christians are about whether the religious right wants that sort of future, and there is a serious concern that a climate of intense pressure to be conservative Christian would be the ultimate result of the “religious right's” political agenda, were they successful and got everything they want. There are also from time to time inconsistencies in applying principles, and there are at times quite a bit of over-sensitivity to Christian religious expression, and examples of critics failing to correctly “choose their battles.”
But mostly when dealing with these issues, setting aside slogans and arguments, the concrete reality of the struggle boils down to people not wanting the police to harass homosexuals and non-Christians, not wanting religious or sexual minorities to be vulnerable to landlords’ biases or discrimination in buying/selling their home, desiring justice against anti-semitic vandals or violent anti-abortion activists, demands that teachers do not try to convert one's children on the sly, values of fairness in protecting citizens and enforcing the law, trying to keep restrictive religious based laws from interfering with life in a world that includes people of various beliefs, a view that censorship of porn or violent images doesn't help or is an unwarranted intrusion of government, a concern that prohibition strategies are not the best way to handle social problems. The critics don't want presumption and privilege of certain conservative Christians to increase and then be abused.
Denominations, Visions of the Future, Theologies
For the sake of convenience, I will use the term “conservative Christian” to include conservatives whether they are Catholics, Presbyterians, Evangelicals, Baptists, Pentecostalists, Charismatics, or Fundamentalists. Most of the following End Times Theories and Prophetic Interpretation Frameworks have appealed to Christians of various denominations. The formal acceptance of some of them is associated with specific forms of Christianity, for reasons of historical development within specific denominations or movements, and sometimes because of a harmony between other ideas within a group. In a more informal way, such ideas move around and shape other groups and movement with contact, and individuals tend to have difficulty fitting cookie cutter expectations except perhaps in very socially controlled and pressured situations found in heavily indoctrinated/doctrinal groups. But experience shows that among Fundamentalists there are disagreements. Baptist theologians have had fistfights over disagreements on interpretation of the Bible, and these theologians believed in literal interpretation of the plain meaning of scripture. So unless a social demand for doctrinal purity is very strong, or unless there are what some would call cultic manipulations and group dynamics, diversity on some scale is to be expected.
The prevailing image of the conservative Christian's views of the end-times is shaped largely by movies and popular books which represent a sizable but by no means conclusive picture of the varying end-times scenarios and understandings of government, politics, and prophecy. Most horror movies can be discounted as mythologizing on a religious theme. However, several movies produced by Jack Van Impe ministries, and more popularly, the “Left Behind” series of books and movies, can be viewed as a conservative Christian version of either Bible/Prophecy study or horror entertainment. The framework accepted by these dramatizations is one among many, but their popularity makes them significant. Other conservative Christians do not accept various parts of these end-times scenarios, put things along a different time line, put different types of people (Christians, Jews, non-Christians, end-times converts, etc.) in different roles at points, do not accept this scenario at all, claiming that various parts already happened, or do not interpret the Anti-Christ as a single man. But among some groups the differences in explanation/understanding of prophecy is used to justify extreme political positions, and so these differences are important for reasons that go beyond comparative religion. Also the political theology of the role of the church are important, regardless of end-time scenario, as these effect the vision of the future for the world.
While denominational differences do play a role, the political extremists can be identified more by the application of their theology and understanding of the Bible to politics. So my emphasis will be on those aspects of Dispensationalism, Covenant Theology, the Latter Rain movement, Dominion Theology, Kingdom Now, Theonomic Reconstruction, which either explain some of the positions of conservative Christians or the religious right in world affairs, or which play a significant role in plotting a political vision for a Christian nation.