Sunday, January 20, 2008

Labeling Faith and Justice

I remember watching a presidential debate four years ago in which John Kerry was asked to explain his pro-choice position in terms of his Catholic faith. His answer was painful to endure. A veteran politician who surely had to answer this question many times, he had neither the words nor the disposition to talk about his own faith. His response was like scratching fingernails down a blackboard.

That is when it hit me forcefully that the religious right has thoroughly hijacked the language and agenda connecting faith and public policy. I had worked extensively in ecumenical settings over the years and I knew very well that religion had no political affiliation. I knew that there were eloquent voices of faith speaking to issues of peace, justice, and equality. But those voices were seldom mentioned in the media, and were largely ignored by the politicians who needed their insights and their support.

After the Democrats got thumped in 2004 some politicians who embraced the cause of social justice discovered they were in need of some pastoring, and perhaps some mentoring. I posted some thoughts on this at the time, focusing particularly on Jim Wallis and his very influential book, God's Politics. It became evident that a broader understanding of faith and politics was being birthed in the national media.

Now comes a post by Brian McLaren, chair of Sojourners, one of my favorite faith and justice organizations, in which he describes the need for a new name to attach to folks like him:

A lot of us are people without a label these days.

Media folks want to call us the “Religious Left,” since they can tell we’re not the Religious Right. But that bipolar terminology brings a lot of baggage we neither want nor believe in. There’s “Progressive Christians” – but that’s interpreted by some as a euphemism for “Religious Left.” Some people like to mix red/Republican and blue/Democrat and speak of “Purple Christians,” but the image for me evokes bug-eyed believers who have held their breath too long.

Despite the progress made since 2004, it seems that the "faith agenda" is now dominated by Huckabee evangelicals and Romney Mormons--a fascinating thing to watch but certainly not something driven by social justice issues. Obama has pulpit oratory reminiscent of the black preachers but religion is not really at the heart of the man or his policies. The efforts of other candidates to utilize faith talk has been at best uninspiring and sometimes embarrassing. Once again the presidential campaign is lacking the voice that finds justice, not creationism, in faith, and that names the poor, not the privileged, as a religious cause.

Labels are often a negative thing. They oversimplify. They divide. They minimize.

But sometimes a wisp of an idea, however virtuous, needs first to be named. A label will guarantee nothing. It is by deeds that we shall be known. But those of us whose faith embraces social justice need to find a name that gives voice and identity to the cause, perhaps the calling, that defines us and unites us.


3 comments:

  1. I am looking at the sign marker..."Baptist preacher and radical politician..." Wow! My mind is boggled at the thought....
    And what happened to our "voices?"

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi Grant, loved your January 20th post and particularly the last paragraph of it. Seems that within our faith tradition there are those struggling in their advocacy for social justice and struggling with a sense that things move forward far too slowly.

    It's likely that both of us know persons who have left the church because their "deeds" and/or advocacy for social justice are unwelcomed or causing annoyance. Others drift away in hopes of finding a community of progressive faith that espouses and prophetically demonstrates commitment to social justice. Seems these individuals do so in hopes of finding a spiritual home and faith experience consistent with their values.

    I should note that my remarks reflect mainly a North American progressive perspective. In that regard, I remember a lunch gathering you and I had with some folks from British Columbia a few years ago. One person inquired with you why progressively minded people should stick around as the church seemed stuck and lacking forward movement in several regards, social justice concerns being one of those.

    I remember that you were appreciative of their concerns and urged the group to stay engaged. I don't know if you recall that lunch conversation or not. If so, I'd be interested in any further reflections or insights you might have had since that time. Thanks so much!

    Brad
    brshumate@comcast.net

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hopefully you have read George Lakoff's book, "Don't Think of an Elephant". Lakoff reminds us that the Republicans have framed the language we use to the point of causing the general "unthinking" public to change their minds about many important issues.

    Years ago, before the church's name change I read another important book called "Positioning" that reminded many of us of the importance of the name of a product or institution to it's success. I even sent a copy of that book to President Shehee.

    This book of Lakoff's is just as important. Now we realize how terms like "tax relief", "partial birth abortion", and "death tax" got invented by the right to invoke frames and dominate issues.

    Think of the framing for the word "relief". For there to be relief, there has to be an affliction. That makes taxation appear to be an affliction. The person who removes the affliction becomes the hero. The persons receiving that relief were primarily the top 1% of the rich.

    We learned that attacking our opponent's frame by using their framing just reinforces their message.

    People make decisions about their politics and candidates based on their value system, and the language and frames that invoke those values.

    We must quit letting the Republican party frame our issues by using their terms.

    Richard Nixon learned about framing the hard way. While under pressure to resign during the Watergate investigation, he addressed the nation on TV. He stood there in full view of the nation and said, "I am not a crook."...leaving everyone viewing thinking about him as a crook. He learned that when you are arguing against the other side, do not use their language.

    I recommend George Lakoff's book as we discuss the framing of issues.

    ReplyDelete