"The Religious Right's Era is Over" is the message that's been going around the internet and in print, the title of Jim Wallis's Time Magazine (Feb. 16, 2007) piece, which begins:
As I have traveled around the country, one line in my speeches always draws cheers: "The monologue of the Religious Right is over, and a new dialogue has now begun." We have now entered the post-Religious Right era. Though religion has had a negative image in the last few decades, the years ahead may be shaped by a dynamic and more progressive faith that will make needed social change more possible.
In the churches, a combination of deeper compassion and better theology has moved many pastors and congregations away from the partisan politics of the Religious Right. In politics, we are beginning to see a leveling of the playing field between the two parties on religion and "moral values," and the media are finally beginning to cover the many and diverse voices of faith. These are all big changes in American life, and the rest of the world is taking notice.
Apparently, Wallis seems to have publicly awarded himself a "mission accomplished" banner for all his hard work of late in pitching religion and "God's politics" to the Political Left.
He says,
Most people I talk to think that politics isn't working in America and believe that the misuse of religion has been part of the problem.
It's the Right's problem, of course. For he also writes:
Even more amazing, the Left is starting to get it [religion]. Progressive politics is remembering its own religious history and recovering the language of faith. Democrats are learning to connect issues with values and are now engaging with the faith community. They are running more candidates who have been emboldened to come out of the closet as believers themselves.
It's OK for the Liberal Left to use religion. I recently received a mailing from a presidential candidate on the Political Left reminding me, like Wallis does, that Americans "are weary of the dead zone that politics has become, in which narrow interests vie for advantage and ideological minorities [orthodox Christians?] seek to impose their own versions of absolute truth." Another piece, in Newsweek, tells of famous candidate not previous profiled as religious, at whose "center" of "identity" now is . . . "Christianity"!
More Wallis:
Politics is failing to resolve the big moral issues of our time, or even to seriously address them. And religion has too often been used as a wedge to divide people, rather than as a bridge to bring us together on those most critical questions.
So religion is OK, as long as it does not divide people, but rather serves as a bridge. I'm sorry, when did Jesus, the carpenter of Nazareth, the Jew born in a manger of Bethlehem, call himself the bridge over troubled water and not the one who brings, not peace (He said it, not I), but division? The problem is, even in politics, some critical questions are questions because they don't resolve easily or at all into some compromise. You can't be for and against everything.
Politics is politics. When has politics ever been lion-and-lamby peaceful? Now if any religion serves to calm the troubled waters of politics, then I would wager that that religion has been seriously watered down, to serve politics. And be used.
Meanwhile, back on "the Right," folks like me really don't care that much for politics at all. I do care about how much longer we can survive turning human beings into commodities and about the right to life.
Our fine Catholic friend G. K. Chesterton once noted that the lion that lies down with the lamb does not lose his ferocity, which is what makes it such a paradox. Touchy-feely liberals should get to know this fact: the lion does not become a lamb himself.
That said, I've always been rather centrist, and when I ignore the abortion debate, I side with what many describe as "the Left" on many issues. Then their mouthpieces write articles like this and I just have to say: If you want to complain about partisan politics, stop labeling yourself.
Posted by: Michael | February 19, 2007 at 12:54 PM
We wish the Religious Left every bit as much success as we on the Religious Right have had on such key issues as abortion and homosexual "marriage." ;-)
Posted by: Bill R | February 19, 2007 at 01:09 PM
James,
Not only did it start a long time ago, it ended a long time ago. The issues that motivate the Religious Right are of the same category as those that motivated the Victorians, the chief difference being that the Victorians were successful in implementing their desired policies into law. I would then say that their era began to come to an end in the 1930s and pretty much gave up the ghost by the end of the 1960s. Wallis's observation is very old news.
If the current Religious Right accomplished much of anything it was only to slow the loss of government regulation of "private" moral matters, but the march to dismantling government's role in these matters has continued forward, with few significant set backs. If I could exchange the last 30 years of the Religious Right's Era (beginning, let us say in the late 1970s) for the laws regulating "prvate" morality which existed then but no longer are on the books (either because they were repealed or were struck down by the Supreme Court), I'd make the exchange in a heartbeat. So much for The Religious Right's Era.
Posted by: GL | February 19, 2007 at 01:26 PM
I've been going back through Francis Schaeffer's "How Should We Then Live" book and video series lately (now thirty years old -- I remember seeing it when it was new). Now, being thirty years older, I have the background to understand more of it, and I come away with the sad conviction that the government and society around me have advanced so far in barren philosophies that lead inevitably to death that there is no longer a reason to hope for return and repentance. They blinded themselves so long ago that they no longer even remember what light looked like or why anyone would want it. I find the word "moribund" coming naturally to my lips when describing the nation and find myself believing the final death of the nation will be not a curse but a blessing for the relief the nation's victims (especially the unborn) will gain thereby. It makes praying for judgment feel more natural than praying for mercy. Schaeffer seemed to think that the last chance for repentance passing in his own day. I suspect (the most I can do, since I am no prophet) that is is now long past.
Posted by: Reid | February 19, 2007 at 02:56 PM
Reid,
Modern atheistic society is coasting on 1500 years of Christian civilization, and when it's gone it's gone.
Posted by: Douglas | February 19, 2007 at 04:19 PM
What would one expect Jim Wallis (c), Inc. to say?
The question is always rhetorical to him as it is to those self-described progressives whose idea of the Law of Love is the eternal expansion of bureaucracy as the Great Mommy. He can hang the "Christian" shingle out when it suits him to expand his Wallis fanchise even further. But he still barks for the carnival.
Posted by: John Hetman | February 19, 2007 at 05:55 PM
The only reason Wallis lies about Christ--( a lie because I am sure he's read the Bible)is because Christ said he came for division-even mother against daughter, etc., etc. But polls show Americans no longer love the spicy give and take of genuine hot political debate--they vote mostly for the candidate that comes across as placid, seemingly uncontroversial, doesn't rock the boat or make the waters rough, smiles benignly and talks smooothly. So Wallis has to make like that is all Christ stood for --tranquility and feeling good.
So Wallis, I offer you a bridge. If people like you will become pro-life and endorse traditional marriage there will be a bridge between us and political peace. If you say no--then who is divisive?? Or is there only a bridge if those who believe in traditional Christian morality sell out their souls for the sake of a bridge to politicians who are the allies of abortionists and Gay activists.
However, as time goes by, I think most voters will eventually see through this one-sided anti-divisive scam (oppose us,you are the divisive ones) being promoted by the Left.
Posted by: Deacon John M. Bresnahan | February 19, 2007 at 06:30 PM
"when I ignore the abortion debate"
That elephant sitting in the corner is quite a large elephant to ignore ; see today's discovery of infant corpses, victims of sex selection, in India.
Posted by: tony | February 19, 2007 at 06:53 PM
Tony--
That's why I qualified it with "when" I ignore it. You'll notice that I commented on that post, too. When it comes to how I vote, though, you can't ignore such an issue.
God bless.
Posted by: Michael | February 19, 2007 at 08:09 PM
Douglas, I fear you are right. The big question for me is the practical one: how does one live faithfully to the Lord in a moribund society? I agree with James Kushiner's comment about "not caring much for politics," having concluded that the political system is simply too much decayed to accomplish anything good in the Lord's eyes.
Posted by: Reid | February 20, 2007 at 01:21 PM
The World is always going to Hell. That's why it's "the World".
Have a good Lent, everybody.
Posted by: Gene Godbold | February 20, 2007 at 03:23 PM
I come from fundamentalist stock, and there is much I deplore within my ecclesiastical culture. This trait I do not deplore: even as fundamentalists had there soup kitchens and preached gospel - so many of the premillennial type got this right. They believed and lived like the world was truly going to hell in a handbasket. When PTL, Falwell, Robertson, et al arrived on the scene wanting to re-Christianize America they forgot about the Fall and its effects on the cosmos.
We must get used to the idea that Christianity will need to survive a post-Christian age, just as it did a pre-Christian age. I'm afraid I disagree with Russell Kirk on this. The possiblity of another Augustan Age has past. We are one waypoint away from Armegeddon.
Posted by: Van | February 21, 2007 at 10:07 AM
I come from fundamentalist stock, and there is much I deplore within my ecclesiastical culture. This trait I do not deplore: even as fundamentalists had there soup kitchens and preached gospel - so many of the premillennial type got this right. They believed and lived like the world was truly going to hell in a handbasket. When PTL, Falwell, Robertson, et al arrived on the scene wanting to re-Christianize America they forgot about the Fall and its effects on the cosmos.
We must get used to the idea that Christianity will need to survive a post-Christian age, just as it did a pre-Christian age. I'm afraid I disagree with Russell Kirk on this. The possiblity of another Augustan Age has past. We are one waypoint away from Armegeddon.
Posted by: Van | February 21, 2007 at 10:08 AM
My $.02:
Posted by: Rich Leonardi | February 21, 2007 at 08:09 PM
As Yogi Berra once said, prediction is difficult, particularly when it involves the future. Bp Spong tried to make himself the poster child of a liberal resurgence, and he's now retired. When the Mainline churches stop their membership slide, then I'll begin to believe that they're on their way back.
As Napoleon (?) once said of the Bourbons returned to power, in their exile they forgot nothing and learned nothing. The Liberal church seems to have done the same.
I recently read a book by Wallis and another by Tony Campolo. Both of them were espousing the "consistent pro-life ethic." If you read their discussion on abortion carefully, it appears that they're agin' it, but wouldn't outlaw it. So, a consistent pro-life ethic would require them to be against outlawing capital punishment and war, or am I missing something here?
Wallis also recounted a pro-life conference where a speaker was noting that 4,000 abortions are occurring every day, which shows the seriousness of the issue. Wallis came back than more than that number were dying of AIDS and dirty water, so these were more important.
First point, I think he was citing worldwide deaths in the latter two categories, versus abortions in the U.S. But let that go: write this down; the number of deaths is the measure of the seriousness of the problem. Then he went on to discuss capital punishment, and by his own figures, fewer than 100 people a year are executed in this country, some of whom may be innocent. Go figure.
With leaders like Wallis, how can the religious left miss?
Jeff Sawtelle
Posted by: Jeff Sawtelle | February 24, 2007 at 07:19 PM