Just got done watching the Great Debators with Denzel Washington and Forrest Whittaker. I highly recommend it. In the movie, it portrays the Jim Crow South in the 1930s. The most disturbing image was when Denzel and his debators are driving on a country road in Texas one night and come upon a lynching. There is a mob of about 50-100 white men and boys there looking at a burned African American corpse. When they notice that the passengers in the vehicle that has stumbled upon the scene are African American, they rush the car in an attempt to apprehend them as well. In the meantime, there is a moment where you see the corpse falling into the embers of the flame that killed him. This was a horrifying situation. Another scene showed an African American PHD and his family driving on a dirt road and running over a pig and the owner of the animal demanding a heavy price for the animal (more than market value) and calling the PhD "boy" the whole time.
This is the social and culture context of the region where I currently live and have grown up. These bigotry was allowed and sometimes fostered by the religious tradition that I am a part of. This haunts me. The denomination that I am a part of came about solely due to the issue of slavery. The Southern Baptist Convention was born because the southern states did not want to abolish slavery like the churches in the northern states. Of course, the convention has since made many apologies to African Americans because of this and the current issue of the Baptist Faith and Message elaborates the denomination's stance on racial equality. However, the link between conservatism and bigotry is hard to shake.
Thinking on this after the movie, I feel that Conservatives' dogmatics in current religious practice over hot button issues such as the Ten Commandments in governmental locations, Embryonic Stem Cell Research, Terri Schiavo, and the Religious Right's move into Republican politics has marred the public image of the Evangelical. I feel that the word "Evangelical" has now become synonomous with "extremist", "radical", "hard-line", "fundamentalist", and "bigot".
Just on the way home from Jackson, TN today, I commented on this with my wife and I told her the harm that conservatives have done themselves with the position on biblical manhood and womanhood. One of the issues that I will be tackling in the coming semester in Systematic Theology III will be the concept of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood and their respective roles in the home and at church (and in the public sphere). I commented that more harm has been done regarding this issue by conservative men who feel that God has scripturally given them the authority and right to rule the home and the church with an iron hand and by dictum. But Christ calls men to lead the home with servant leadership. Love your wives as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her. That is not a ruling leadership that many men practice in conservative Christian homes and evangelical congregations. Men and women / husband and wives are to be subject to one another. Other scriptures comment that when you marry, you become one in the flesh with your wife and you are "no longer your own". Tough words.
My question is to the contributors of Triskelos: Is it possible to be conservative without being a bigot or at least labled as one by society?
AESKEPULUS ATROPOS
Posts
3 comments:
First, I agree that The Great Debaters is an incredible film. Second, I applaud your perspective on the role of men in the husband/wife relationship and in the church. Third, I agree that conservatives have shot themselves in the foot and term evangelical carries negative connotations.
To answer your direct question:
It can be done. It must be done carefully and with much dialogue so that opposing sides can chisle away from the cookie cutter preconceived notions about each other to find out what they are really about. That is the problem. Many people whether conservative or not see the dialogue as lengthy and inefficient. Furthermore, many believe that they shouldn't have to hear the views of others if they have made up their minds. The single most important thing conservatives can do is speak their mind but not force their views. Evangelicals have the stereotype of spitting damnation and labeling sinners, but we are all sinners. They need to listen more before they start throwing out accusations. It takes time and tolerance to bring someone around who was raised or has long developed opposing views. Many conservatives consider tolerance to be weakness or just unacceptable. I personally feel that their weakness is there inability to perservere through lengthy dialogue and to have a meaningful discussion. Laziness is the other weakness of many conservatives. I will throw out a stereotype that is not always true but more often than not, hence the word. Conservatives are less educated about the views of their opposition (and just less educated period) and generally if they do educate themselves they can't be objective and then distortion is a problem. The problem is that they learn the view of the oppostion not to understand it but simply to refute it. Maybe if conservatives were willing to learn and understand the philosophy behind that which they oppose they might make more progress. If they want scriptural support then they can look to Paul and the Stoics. I have my doubts. I can hear it now.
Imagine an evangelical preacher nurturing his flock:
We will not comprimise our beliefs. Our beliefs our the only correct beliefs as they are founded in the infallible Word of G-d. We will not tolerate homosexuals, abortion, stem cell research, or Muslims. For it is written:
"But G-d turned away and gave them over to the worship of the heavenly bodies. This agrees with what is written in the prophets:
'Did you bring me sacrifices and offerings forty years in the desert, O house of Israel. You have lifted up the shrine of Molech and the star of your god Rephan, the idols you made to worship. Therefore I will send you into exile beyond Babylon'
That is where the homosexuals, abortionists and Democrats dwell, in Babylon. That is the word of G-d for the people of G-d.
Back to reality:
The problem is that this rhetoric only can sustain an existing congregation of believers but does little to branch out to those who are lost and not already raised within the Church.
I haven't seen this one yet, but will add it to my list.
I will point out what Aeskepulus might, just to be fair. The Republicans may not (in recent history) have had a good records with race issues, but they did have a good history in other times. And the reverse is true...the Democratic party was more racist in the past but has become the opposite in recent times.
Nevertheless, the issue raised is less about which party was for what when, as the proliferation of the evangelical ideology into the political framework via modern conservatism.
Is it possible to be conservative and not a bigot? Clearly. I know many who are conservative but not racist or masogonistic. Fewer that are not these things and also not homophobic. But they do exist.
Is it possible to avoid the label? Probabaly, but not in present day. It would take a further conversation to disconnect modern conservatism from modern evangelicalism such that the two could once again be seen as two separate (if co-existing) entities.
And to be blatantly partisan for a moment, it won't hurt once Mr. Bush is out of office. He represents much of what is worst about the perfect storm that is the combination of conservatism and evangelicalism.
But I am curious what will happen if Senator Obama becomes president. If we can step over the socialist rhetoric for just a moment to consider reality, I'm curious what real effects will be had. What happens when the Man keeping someone down is no longer caucasian? I find it heartening that Barack is taking on the hard issues of his own ethnicity by having open discussions about single-parent homes in the African-American community, and not just discussions about the poverty line.
I think he, in some ways, represents the end to the permissability of certain modes of thinking by his ethnic community. It won't disappear overnight, but once we have an African American president (especially one who seems to be very comfortable calling others out on personal responsibility) the days might be numbered with this conversation going on.
I appreciate Gaius' comments on this issue as it has been one with which I have long wrestled. I have come to believe that this issue has as much to do with stereotyping and inflated sensitivity as with truth. I believe that the question could be asked of any other ideology, religious preference, nationality, etc and be found to have an affirmative answer. There would probably be similar historical or cultural nuances at work in any other situation. Why do Muslim and Hindu Indians hate each other? Why do Japanese mainlanders discriminate against their numerically insignficant (and Causasian) Ainu tribal minorities? Why do African Americans almost universally support a political party that only a few generations ago was bent on keeping them enslaved?
Of course, just because other lifeways or thoughtways have their problems doesn't justify errors at home. As it seems with many of you, I, too, was born into a culture that valued conservative culture, period. Nothing else apparently had much value beyond a certain geographic and/or ideological wall. Any seeming problems such as paternalism (still alive and well in new and exciting ways), racism, and cultural stagnation were simply explained away as "this is the way we do things." Not very helpful, especially for those of us who chose to look, think, perhaps even live outside those boundaries.
However, just because those problems existed or still exist doesn't necessarily negate the entire worldview or philosophy or conservatism. Those ideologies most critiquing conservatism, I believe, have the same fault of bigotry expressed in different ways with perhaps even worse human consequences. Again, that doesn't excuse bigotry within conservatism. As a Christian (and a conservative, as the terms are not often synonymous), I believe that a sin is an act of rebellion against God no matter who commits it. I suppose that an extra measure of onus is placed on conservatism, however, as it does make judgment calls on personal sins as opposed to liberalism or marxism with their interest in social, class, or public ills.
In the end, I think that everyone is guilty of some kind of bigotry. The fact that it is popular at this time in history to label conservatives as automatic bigots is an expression of bigotry itself, of course.
If we wanted to continue this line, I believe it would be even more helpful to define what 'conservatism' and 'bigotry' means. That could be a real sticking point for many in their application or rejection of conservatism as a whole. Our definitions for each term probably equal the number of people on this site. As a conservative, I believe there are truths, practices, and institutions that should be lived out faithfully and defended if necessary. This can be construed as bigotry, I suppose, in some corners as I do believe that everyone would be better off living towards these same goals. However, another problem enters when we each have different ideas of what bigotry is. Is lynching a person of a different color for a supposed crime bigotry? What about not preferring to watch Tyler Perry movies or listening to Triple Six Mafia? What about not living in predominantly black neighborhoods?
In the end, truly, this is an issue of the heart, one that cuts across all cultures and ideologies. As conservatives, we don't have a monopoly on bigotry, but we definitely will need to continue to work towards our goals while being discerning of blindspots and ennervating practices.
Post a Comment