To Change The World, Week Six

To Change The World by James Davison Hunter
To Change The World

Today’s read­ing is about the reli­gious right. I know some of you are con­ser­v­a­tive and some of you are lib­er­al. Whichev­er camp you align with, I encour­age you to read both this chap­ter and the next chap­ter (on the reli­gious left) care­ful­ly, seek­ing to gain sym­pa­thy for the side you oppose. I also encour­age you to read the attached essay “The Prob­lem With Con­ser­vatism” by J. Budziszews­ki, a Chris­t­ian polit­i­cal philoso­pher at the Uni­ver­si­ty of Texas. He has a com­pan­ion essay about lib­er­al­ism which I’ll send next week — so whether you are lib­er­al or con­ser­v­a­tive you’ll find a chap­ter that describes your views fair­ly while also encoun­ter­ing a thought­ful cri­tique of your tribe.

Any­way, on to today’s insights. Hunter is fair and insight­ful in describ­ing the Chris­t­ian right:

“In the present world order, many if not most of the prin­ci­ples [polit­i­cal­ly con­ser­v­a­tive Chris­tians] most esteem have come under fun­da­men­tal chal­lenge. There has been a chal­lenge to het­ero­sex­u­al­i­ty, to monogamy, to mar­riage as a life-long com­mit­ment, to the sacred respon­si­bil­i­ty of par­ent­ing, to the author­i­ty and auton­o­my of the fam­i­ly. There has been a chal­lenge to the sanc­ti­ty of human life, most clear­ly in the ear­li­est stages of life but also life at its most vul­ner­a­ble and at its end. Not only has there been a chal­lenge to the truths of the Chris­t­ian faith and the tra­di­tions and scrip­ture that express them, but there has been a chal­lenge to the very con­cept of truth as well. And there has been a chal­lenge to the moral author­i­ty of the church. These chal­lenges have been expressed intel­lec­tu­al­ly, edu­ca­tion­al­ly, and artis­ti­cal­ly, but also com­mer­cial­ly, through adver­tis­ing, and in the range of enter­tain­ment media. Not least, all of these chal­lenges have also been expressed legal­ly and polit­i­cal­ly.” (page 111)

I would be sur­prised if you have not heard sim­i­lar sen­ti­ments in the lob­by after church. In response,

Con­ser­v­a­tive Chris­tians “defend a promi­nent role for reli­gion in pub­lic life, a tra­di­tion­al nuclear fam­i­ly, and tra­di­tion­al moral­i­ty.” (page 122)

Hunter deeply under­stands the per­spec­tive of con­ser­v­a­tive Chris­tians. It makes me won­der what church­es he has attend­ed. Even in small things he gets their self-under­stand­ing. I think it would sur­prise many at Stan­ford to learn that most polit­i­cal­ly-engaged con­ser­v­a­tive evan­gel­i­cals con­sid­er them­selves to be the true activists who pur­sue human flour­ish­ing in the face of an unjust cul­ture.

“In this view, the Toc­quevil­lian lega­cy that cel­e­brates the active role of reli­gion in pub­lic extend­ed into the mod­ern age through the abo­li­tion­ist move­ment, pro­hi­bi­tion, and with the civ­il rights move­ment of the 1960s and it extends to the present in the move­ment against abor­tion, homo­sex­u­al­i­ty, and the like. In their own view, con­ser­v­a­tive Chris­t­ian activists are any­thing but strange. They are, rather, the “right­ful heirs” of pro­gres­sive Chris­tian­i­ty.” (page 114)

Hav­ing said all of that, Hunter address­es some­thing that I hear often: many con­ser­v­a­tive Chris­tians are fed up with the Repub­li­can par­ty because they feel tak­en for grant­ed.

This is the prob­lem with elec­toral pol­i­tics in our time. Politi­cians can­not get nom­i­nat­ed with­out the sup­port of the grass­roots activists, but they can­not get elect­ed and gov­ern with­out mov­ing to the polit­i­cal cen­ter. It is inevitable that politi­cians who do get elect­ed betray their most ardent sup­port­ers by mod­er­at­ing (p.126) their posi­tions. Need­less to say, this comes as a source of ter­ri­ble frus­tra­tion to the move­ment lead­ers. Move­ment lead­ers reg­u­lar­ly and prob­a­bly right­ly accuse Repub­li­can politi­cians and offi­cials of “just ignor­ing those that put them in office.” (page 125–126)

Hav­ing said that, as long as the Demo­c­ra­t­ic par­ty con­tin­ues on their cur­rent tra­jec­to­ry it is dif­fi­cult to imag­ine a large-scale drift of con­ser­v­a­tive Chris­tians from Repub­li­can to Demo­c­rat. As I said in the runup to the elec­tion, I could not in good con­science vote for either Trump or Clin­ton and so I cast my bal­lot for a third par­ty can­di­date. But I know many of my friends who vot­ed for Trump as a way of pre­vent­ing a Clin­ton vic­to­ry. I think if I was to ask them why they would say some­thing like this. “Sure, Trump is crazy and per­son­al­ly immoral, but Clin­ton is dis­ci­plined and devot­ed to pro­mot­ing wicked­ness. I think Amer­i­ca will be bet­ter off under the crazy sleaze­bag.”

It is dif­fi­cult to over­state the cen­tral­i­ty of the Supreme Court to the think­ing of most of my con­ser­v­a­tive Chris­t­ian friends. Hunter nails it with this para­graph:

If there is an epi­cen­ter of the prob­lem, though, it is seen in the judi­cial system—“the last great bas­tion for lib­er­al­ism.” Some have called “the sec­u­lar-lib­er­al takeover” of the judi­cia­ry the great­est assault rep­re­sen­ta­tive self-gov­ern­ment has ever faced; an assault that is “more dan­ger­ous and suc­cess­ful because it comes from with­in and aims to destroy not just our phys­i­cal defens­es, but the moral ideas, habits and prac­tices that sus­tain our char­ac­ter as a free peo­ple.” The prin­ci­pal instru­ment for their assault has been “an abuse of the judi­cial sys­tem,” and in par­tic­u­lar the Fed­er­al judiciary’s asser­tion of supreme and unchecked con­sti­tu­tion­al pow­er. In par­tic­u­lar, the U.S. Supreme Court has arro­gat­ed to itself gov­ern­men­tal pow­er that the Tenth Amend­ment unam­bigu­ous­ly reserves to the States, arbi­trar­i­ly with­drawn the pro­tec­tion of the com­mu­ni­ty from gen­er­a­tions to come, inter­fered with the pub­lic cel­e­bra­tion of reli­gious fes­ti­vals and obser­vances deter­mined by the peo­ple, and now seeks to remove all ref­er­ences to the Cre­ator, God, (p.117) from pub­lic dec­la­ra­tions adopt­ed by the peo­ple. The cam­paign of “lib­er­als and pro­gres­sive forces” has been noth­ing less than “insid­i­ous.” The prob­lem, then, is not just the fact that the courts are com­plic­it in “try­ing to erase our Judeo- Chris­t­ian her­itage.” “The courts have also imposed immoral deci­sions on the Amer­i­can peo­ple.” The courts’ deci­sions lib­er­al­iz­ing the prac­tice of abor­tion and homo­sex­u­al­i­ty are par­tic­u­lar­ly galling since the major­i­ty of Amer­i­cans oppose them. Cumu­la­tive­ly, these actions amount to “judi­cial tyran­ny.” (pages 116–117)

My friends who vot­ed for Trump felt a huge sense of vin­di­ca­tion when Neil Gor­such was con­firmed to the Supreme Court. Trump could do every­thing else wrong and get the Supreme Court right and my friends would say, “I made a good call. Thank God Hilary Clin­ton is not pres­i­dent.”

I am very eager to see how he por­trays the reli­gious left in next week’s read­ing and then how he cri­tiques them both after­wards.

Leave a Reply