Sightings comes from the Martin Marty Center for the Advanced Study of Religion at the University of Chicago Divinity School.
The Religious Right after the Election
— Martin E. Marty | November 12, 2012
Through the years your Monday Sightings has never commented on presidential campaigns, and the contest held this year is no exception. Today, self-liberated from the practice of opting-out, we can survey the comments on “public religion” in the campaign and election just past. We usually footnote these columns with reference to newspaper and internet coverage of the topic of the week. This year we will list a few, but doing so is hardly necessary: by today your computer can come up with scores, if not hundreds of stories and editorials on the subject. Scan them and you will find rare unanimity on this kind of issue: the Religious Right, aka the Christian Right, aka the Evangelical-Catholic Right experienced losses on its key chosen issues enough to raise questions about its influence: has it been over-rated all along?
We’ve been through milder versions of this in the past. Every setback of these coalitions has elicited widespread comment about the “decline” or “end” of the political Religious Right. Yet it remains, and churches covered by the term Right tend to be stable or growing. Huge majorities of members from these voted for Governor Mitt Romney. Yet on the issues chosen by their leaders and advocated for—even to the point of law-breaking and taunts to the I.R.S. about overt electioneering—they won little. The biggest losers were the Roman Catholic bishops, strongest advocates on sexual issues which did not attract their membership. (On Catholic social issues, bishops and members were more in line with church teaching, but most citizens don’t know or note or care that there is such a match.) The National Catholic Reporter, from the Catholic left, judged that among “the big losers . . . on Election Day 2012, the Catholic bishops are big losers.” The “nuns on the bus,” who are being chastised by Catholic officialdom, “on the other hand, were real winners in the Catholic world with their emphases on economic justice.”
On the Evangelical side, the losses were even more notable, as Laurie Goodstein chronicled them in a long New York Times cover story. The judgments on that page were not slanted by Times bias, because Ms. Goodstein simply quoted the evangelical notables. Lined up against President Obama and for Governor Romney, chiefly over the sex-and-marriage type issues were Billy Graham, whose organization paid for full-page ad after ad in the big papers, Ralph Reed, Albert Mohler, less-known Bob Vander Plante, and more—and more. They expressed, variously, surprise, shock, numbness, disappointment, judgment, and anger. Mohler: “The entire moral landscape has changed. . . An increasingly secularized America understands our positions, and has rejected them.” That “secularized” America who voted against the Religious Right leadership included millions of evangelicals, most Catholics, mainline Protestants, significant numbers of black church members, and, yes, many non-churched citizens.
One hopes that the jarring might inspire some of the leaders to reexamine their positions, the ones they are sure are exclusively congruent with biblical teaching. Who knows where such reexamination might lead? Meanwhile, reliable pollster-commentator Robert P. Jones, head of the Public Religion Research Institute, tied the jolting of the Religious Right to other elements in electoral change, some of them demographic. “This election signaled the last where a white Christian strategy is workable.” We’ll let the Right address that, and Sightings will wait and see when the present campaign (for 2016), which began “the morning after,” Wednesday, November 8 and new reappraisals appear.
References
Laurie Goodstein, “Christian Right Failed to Sway Voters on Issues,” New York Times, November 10, 2012.
Dan Gilgoff, “Election Results Raise Questions about Christian Right’s Influence,” CNN Belief Blog, November 7, 2012.
Sarah McHaney, “Christian Right’s Influence Shaken by U.S. Election,” Inter Press Service, November 8, 2012.
A few paragraphs from Sacred Steps: Children’s Sermon Journal, for the Lectionary texts, Nov. 11 – Year B
Ruth 3:1-5; 4:13-17
In last week’s Lectionary selection, we read the introductory material for the Book of Ruth. When there was a famine in Bethlehem, Elimelech and Naomi moved to Moab to find food, along with their two sons, Chilion and Mahlon. This was a dangerous step because Israelites were not supposed to mix with Moabites, who were believed to have descended from an incestuous relationship between Lot and his eldest daughter (Gen 19:37). Once they settle in Moab, Elimelech dies, leaving Naomi with her two sons. They marry Moabite women, Orpah (Chilion) & Ruth (Mahlon). When her sons also die, leaving no children, Naomi is left with her two daughters-in-law and no future. Having heard that the famine is over in Bethlehem, she decides to go home. While Orpah and Ruth both initially begin the trip with her, Orpah decides to stay in Moab. Ruth pledges her loyalty and commitment to Naomi, and the two women journey to Bethlehem.
This marvelous short story about Ruth & Naomi was an important lesson to the post-exilic Jewish community about who could be part of God’s covenantal people. While Ezra wanted men to divorce their foreign wives, Ruth was a testimony to the blessings of a “foreign” wife. Ruth, the Moabite, is the example of covenant faithfulness, and she holds an important position in the lineage of Israel’s most revered king. Likewise, this story provides a counter-testimony to those in the 21st century who wish to limit God’s love to only certain people whom they deem “acceptable”. Ruth was a true “outsider”, yet she is embraced as part of the Israelite story and, for Christians, also in the lineage of Jesus (Matt 1). In what ways can the faithful in the 21st century continue to broaden our understanding of the expanses of God’s love and care? How can we follow Ruth’s example of covenant faithfulness? Is it possible that Ruth and Naomi, along with Obed, can now live out their lives without a husband?
Hebrews 9:24-28
There are times in congregational life when questions about identity, vision, and direction become the focus of proclaiming the good news of God. Sometimes this conflicts with “doing” the good news of God. These are necessary conversations and debates in the life of a system or institution, but few congregations are prepared for the intensity of these situations and the ensuing posturing, as people take sides. What is good news of God in the midst of congregational conflict? The minister is placed in a situation where she or he has to decide how to “minister” and how to “preach,” which often comes out in the content of “preaching.” The author of Hebrews chooses one path and leadership style. What are the characteristics of that style? How is he choosing to minister to people whom he most likely does not know, or with whom he does not have a relationship?
Returning to the text, one must again ask the question, “What image of God is the text portraying?” There is a misunderstanding about the sacrificial system, its purpose and function, of ancient Judaism among Christians. My hermeneutic, my way of reading and interpreting our holy book of stories, leads me to claim that sacrifices were not something that the LORD commanded, or required, of the people as a way of appeasing the LORD or manipulating the LORD.
Mark 12: 38-44
This passage is so familiar that allowing it to inform, challenge, and “work on us” can be difficult. Odds are you’ve heard sermons, preached sermons, or taught a Sunday school class/bible study on this text. With this in mind, a good first step might be asking yourself which character in the story resonates most with your experience and why? Can you read the text through a different set of eyes? How is your empathy for the scribes, for the disciples who are listening, for those “rich people” coming to the treasury, and for the widow? This is another parable about the kindom of God that draws out conversation on how our communities, religious and secular, are organized and what is valued. It’s more complex than “be like the widow” or finger-pointing judgment against the scribes.
I’ve often wondered if this is an appropriate text for commenting on a congregation’s budget. I wonder what people in the pews hear and ponder, when this story is read aloud. Who are the scribes, widows, rich, and disciples in their midst? Is this text encouraging or indicting, no matter your socioeconomic class? In this election cycle, this text also puts our politics under a microscope and opens a conversation about public policy. How is it that the communal nature of the good news of the kindom of God has become “me and my Jesus”?