(I had this up for about half a day, then took it down. I tried posting it in another private forum I frequent, and it was such a non-issue that I decided I would put it back up here. Apologies in advance if I'm offensive. It would probably be better to apologize for how freaking long it is. That's what happens when you get me up on a soapbox.)
Last Monday, I was walking across campus to the library when I
realized there was a preacher and a crowd gathering directly between me
and the library. This isn't at all uncommon on a college campus, of
course, and usually I avoid it like the plague, because it brings back
too many bad memories of being an evangelical. I remember standing in
those crowds, and I felt nothing but guilt:
guilt that I didn't really want to be there, guilt that I wasn't brave enough to be the one up there, sharing my
faith; and also the opposite guilt that I couldn't muster up
any enthusiasm for this method of sharing my faith, which didn't really seem to me like such a great way to do it. blecch.
But
on this particular occasion, I was in a hurry, the crowd was not large,
and the speaker seemed warm and caring rather than abrasive and
condemnatory, so I decided to walk through rather than going around. It
was fine. But to my surprise, I noticed a guy standing next to the
speaker holding a homemade poster that said, "This guy doesn't know what
he's talking about." Wow, I thought,
ballsy. On both sides:
the people who were with the speaker seemed to be regarding the
sign-holder with exasperated tolerance, but weren't bothering him as he
stood right next to the speaker; and the guy holding the sign looked
determined but like he wished he could be anywhere else.
So
I went on into the library, spent about half an hour finding what I
needed, and came back out. By that time, things had degenerated. The
crowd had doubled in size, the speaker had acquired a bullhorn, and
there was shouting and heckling. Lots of it. You could feel anger
crackling.
This time I didn't hesitate, I gave it a
wide berth. I walked well around it, far enough away that I couldn't
hear what was being said. So I can't tell you exactly what happened.
But I've been-there-done-that enough times that I feel like I could
practically line it out for you. I know and love people on both sides
of that argument, and I feel both sides. Of course, I agree with one
side more than the other, but the frustration for me is how badly they
misunderstand each other. It makes me wonder if we'll ever be able to
live together in peace.
I suspect that the guy with the
bullhorn was a local pastor or maybe a staff member of a campus
ministry like Campus Crusade or Inter-Varsity. I wouldn't be surprised
to discover that he went home that night and sent out an e-mail to a
dozen or so people, which then was forwarded to hundreds and maybe
eventually even thousands more, informing them with urgent sincerity of
the presence of Satan on the campus in UTown. He doubtless told them
how Christians are being persecuted for standing up and speaking their
beliefs, and asked urgently for prayers. If he
is connected with
one of those national campus ministries, I wouldn't even be surprised to
discover that there was also a request for financial support.
Nothing
galvanizes a group of evangelicals like news that one of their own is
being persecuted. After all, how else are they going to know that
they're on the right track? Persecution is built into the theology of
the New Testament, even in the Sermon on the Mount:
"Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are you when people insult you,
persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of
me." You can't argue with them, because it just convinces them they're
on the right track. We must be doing something right, because Satan is raising up attackers.
I've
been there, but these days I'm more sympathetic with the hecklers. I'm
not the heckling type, but I'm a liberal, and we all feel it: the
frustration that the Religious Right has been able, despite being a
small minority of U.S. citizens, to control the political conversation
in our country for years now. To a liberal, their militant belief that
they are Right and all others are Wrong seems to have practically
brought the process of government to its knees by insisting that their
way is the only way, even when the issue they are discussing--balancing
the federal budget, for example-- has absolutely nothing to do with
religion. Jesus doesn't say a single word about the federal deficit,
even if you allow an extremely broad range of interpretation of his
teaching.
And the Religious Right has been able to do
all that (again, from the point of view of a liberal) under the cover of
freedom of religion. So there has been very little direct confrontation
on that front. So I can understand someone or several someones or
maybe even some kind of organized group deciding
enough!! We are fed up!!
Fed up with the Religious Right being able to stand up in a public
forum and preach about love and mercy at the same time that they are
anti-gay, in favor of the institutional use of torture, and intolerant
and paranoid about nearly all other religious beliefs.
But
I also know--practically for sure-- that the guy with the bullhorn is
not the problem. I can almost hear the hecklers thinking, "Well, we
have to start somewhere." But I don't think this strategy is the way to do it. That preacher almost certainly really does believe in love and
mercy. I can practically guarantee it, even though I'd never seen him
before and wouldn't recognize him if I saw him again. Individual
Christians are usually pretty good people, even the most conservative of
them. They might be opposed to sex before marriage, but if a pregnant
15-year-old showed up at the door of the church on Sunday morning, she
would get
showered with concern, money, and help of practically
any kind she needed (except to get an abortion, of course). They are
just practicing, as fully as they can, the beliefs they firmly believe
are true.
So, the guy with the bullhorn isn't all that
bad a guy, and the hecklers certainly aren't tools of Satan. So where
are we going wrong? I have nothing to back up my opinion on this except
that I believe it to be true. I think it is with the political spin doctors, the talking heads, the people who
increase their audience or their paycheck by playing to people's fears,
creating a perceived need for their commentary by twisting every
movement toward change into an Attack on the Core Values of the American
People, and somehow morphing the central Christian message of love and
mercy into one of condemnation, blame and intolerant self-righteousness.
The problem isn't that we disagree about how to handle health care or
welfare reform or taxes, those disagreements have always been there.
The problem is that political spin doctors have used the language of
religious belief to deal with issues that are not about religion, thus
leading to a widespread belief that to compromise on any opinion is a
moral failure.
You know what? that is a huge over-simplification. But it still bears thinking about.
Anyway.
But (of course) it's not all them. As I've been listening to my
conservative friends and reading the occasional conservative
commentator, I've realized that you can't pin the refusal to compromise
solely on conservatives. Those of us who are liberal have our moments,
too. The most vocal liberals I know are determined to believe that
every single person on welfare is a deserving, hard-working individual
who just happens to be going through a hard time, in spite of plenty of
evidence that welfare fraud is not uncommon.* We can't wait to jump on
the victim bandwagon, anytime or anywhere someone has a sad tale to
tell, often before we even bother to check and see if the story is
true.
A sad story of "victimization" might just be an unfortunate combination
of circumstances that led to a bad outcome, but most liberals jump to
believe that it is evidence of a system-wide problem that requires
activism and outraged condemnation of the status quo--or even
legislation and new government programs. The fact that someone has been
a victim becomes evidence that the whole system is bad, that something is
not fair.
Well,
yeah. Life is unfair. But the fact that one or two or a dozen
particular cases have fallen through the cracks of our current system
doesn't necessarily mean that more government programs will solve the
problem, no matter how sad we might be about it. It might solve
that problem while creating other ones. Or it might not solve anything at all.
This
is new for me. I would not have been able to say this stuff two or
three years ago. It broke my heart (still does, actually) to think that
there are children who go to bed hungry. In the past, I
would have thought it was worth it to fund
a dozen people who didn't deserve it in order to make sure that we
weren't missing one person who really did need it. But that's the kind
of
thinking that drives someone who is fiscally conservative nuts. If we
expect the
conservatives to compromise, we have to be willing to as well. We can't
be afraid to take
an objective look at welfare (or any government program) and see if it's
actually doing what it's supposed to do. I don't by any means think
that we need to end welfare, or even cut back on it. But we can be
willing to investigate ways to make sure it's effective, and that the
funds are going to people who really qualify for them.
This
was unforgivably long, but I'm finally done. Packing up my portable
soapbox, tucking it firmly under my arm, and going home.
*
my "plenty of evidence" is anecdotal-- I sat next to a woman (far more
liberal than me) a couple of weeks ago at a barbecue and listened to her
stories of working in a welfare office. She quit after a few months because she
couldn't deal with all the false claims being handed in, and her
superiors' complete lack of concern about doing anything about them.