Note: This originally posted on Faith and Public Life's Blog as part of a dialogue with Randy Brinson and Pastor Bill Devlin of Redeem the Vote; Shaun Casey of Wesley Theological Seminary and Center for American Progress; Rev. Susan Thistlethwaite of Chicago Theological Seminary; and Rev. Rich Killmer of National Religious Campaign Against Torture.

“Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.” (Hebrews 11:1, RSV).

More and more people across the country are realizing that the recent levels of polarization of politics and politicization of religion has been bad for both, and that the continuation of the conversations between Evangelicals and progressives might be a key step in recalling a more prophetic religion and a more meaningful politics.

As someone who grew up Southern Baptist and whose commitments to progressive politics were formed in the crucible of the Deep South, I have had a somewhat unique vantage point as I’ve worked at this intersection both as a scholar studying the role of religion in public debates, and as a consultant on specific projects, such as a current effort to bring together progressives and Evangelicals on cultural issues with The Third Way and Redeem the Vote.

I want to focus here on one of the deepest obstacle to progress: a sense of defensiveness, particularly the ideological malady that thinks that giving an inch is opening the floodgates to disaster. For example, in Evangelicals circles, it is well-known that James Dobson and the Christian Coalition have both strongly resisted efforts to broaden the evangelical agenda to issues like poverty and global warming, claiming these are not core issues. In progressive circles, I personally encountered a similar defensiveness after giving a presentation of public opinion data that showed the promise of common ground between progressives and Evangelicals. The first comment came from an agitated prominent progressive blogger, who, on the bases of his own biases alone, proceeded to tell us not only that any outreach strategy was a waste of time but went on to seriously propose that a more prudent strategy would be to find ways to simply suppress the Evangelical vote.

The great twentieth century theological H. Richard Niebuhr identified a sense of defensiveness at the heart of what can go wrong not only with religious groups but all human groups and called for a movement from an ethics of defensiveness (which he noted resulted ultimately in an ethics of death) to an ethics of faithfulness and responsibility. The key to this move was to articulate (“to confess” in religious terms) our own positions as honestly as possible while embracing our human finitude, which requires the modest notion that we might be wrong. That simple acknowledgment gives life to a humility that opens up space for new conversations and breaks down old orthodoxies.

It is worth noting that at least three significant things can happen as we move from defensiveness to faithfulness, a process Niebuhr thought had to be ongoing:
1. Space opens up for creativity on issues that seemed completely intractable. For example, as I noted on my blog last week, Democrats in the House recently made a quiet but significant step toward healing one of America's deepest divides by passing the "Reducing the Need for Abortions Initiative" as part of the 2008 Labor-HHS Appropriations bill for 2008.
2. Opponents are humanized and become more complex. For example, in a recent meeting, a prominent Catholic leader told a largely surprised group of progressives that he had hosted visitors in his home to pro-life protests and anti-war protests on back to back weekends and that in his theological framework, these were perfectly consistent things to do.
3. The possibility of mutual critique emerges as the excesses of one ideology become more visible viewed in the light of the other. For example, progressives begin to think more about the importance of changed hearts and Evangelicals more about transformed institutions.

Although these are modest steps, they are significant. Thankfully, we are beginning to see a new day and the emergence of a meaningful national politics that requires less fear and more faith—both in our fellow citizens and in our own abilities to hold our principles while listening to others and looking for the common good.

Labels: common good, evangelicals, niebuhr

Note: This posted originally on FaithfulDemocrats.com.

Last week, Democrats in the House made a quiet but significant step toward healing one of America's deepest divides by passing the "Reducing the Need for Abortions Initiative" as part of the 2008 Labor-HHS Appropriations bill for 2008.

The $647 million abortion reduction package includes many of the provisions in the Reducing the Need for Abortions and Supporting Parents Act (H.R. 1074), legislation developed by Third Way, a progressive think tank, in partnership with pro-life Democrat Tim Ryan (OH - 17) and pro-choice Democrat Rosa L. DeLauro (CT - 3).

The bill's novel approach seeks to reduce the need for abortions by increasing resources both for prevention of unintended pregnancies (such as contraception, sex education, and after school programs) and for services to meet the needs of young women in difficult circumstances who may be deciding whether they are in a position to raise a child (such as child care and health care assistance, adoption awareness). This approach stakes out a new, more nuanced position for the Democratic Party that takes seriously the moral complexity that many Americans feel on this issue. As Rachel Laser, Director of the Third Way Culture Project, noted in a recent dispatch about the legislation, "The Democrats remain and will always be the party of abortion rights, but they are looking more and more like they are also the party of reducing the need for abortion."

The significance of progress on this front should not be underestimated. The issue of abortion has been the quintessential "wedge issue." As it has been marshaled in endless political races over the last few decades, abortion has evolved into a kind of proper noun that conjures an entire worldview. For both Republicans and Democrats, it has become a symbol that inspires, a badge that identifies friend or foe, a litmus test for inclusion, a banner under which to march. One only needs to look at local races, where candidates for school board or county clerk often include their stance on abortion in campaign materials, survey bumper stickers in an average parking lot, or listen in on first dates when the conversation turns to politics to see its symbolic power. "So, are you pro-life or pro-choice?" The question demands a binary answer even as most of us struggle internally with all the qualifiers we really feel.

Despite the binary nature of the issue as a symbol, when asked the right questions, Americans demonstrate this complexity. According to the recent 2006 Pew Religion and Public Life Survey, a majority (55%) of the country can be called "abortion grays," who think that abortion should neither be legal nor illegal all the time. Most importantly, two-thirds (66%) of Americans (and even 61% of white Evangelicals) believe that the country should find some "middle ground" on abortion laws (Pew, August 3, 2006).

The complexities of the issue are felt especially when binary positions are put into conversation with the language of faith. To put this in the context of Christianity, on the one hand, Christians are certainly commanded to value and protect life, but not in an unqualified way or at all costs -- note for example the cases of rape, incest, or saving the life of the mother, where even a majority (51%) of white Evangelicals believe abortion is allowable (Pew, August 3, 2006). On the other hand, Christians are commanded to respect the human capacity and responsibility for making free choices, to be compassionate, and to support social conditions that allow choices to truly be free. And as far back as Augustine in the 4^th century, Christians have understand this world as an imperfect place where difficult, even tragic choices are sometimes made and where the coercive power of law has its limits.

The problem with issues that become symbols is that they spawn entire industries that, rather than looking for solutions that work for the common good, have a vested interest in perpetuating polarization. Although the Republican Party and the far religious right have marketed abortion, religion, and the GOP as a seamless garment, it is striking that with a Republican president and Congress, this administration has done virtually nothing that would actually reduce the number of abortions in America. For serious people of faith who care about abortion as a problem to address rather than a symbol to wield merely for partisan gain, this new Democratic effort to find common ground on the shared value of reducing abortions without imperiling a woman's health or putting anyone in prison should be welcomed as real progress and as a hopeful beginning to a new, more civil era in our shared public life.

Labels: abortion, common good

This post originally written for Third Way Culture Project and can be seen here.

When I hear complaints about the “liberal media”, the additional adjective “secular” is usually a part of the phrase or not far behind. For example, last summer at the so-called “Values Voter Summit” in Washington, DC, speaker after speaker referred to how the “secular liberal media” has neglected religion and distorted coverage of religion and conservative values. A new study by Media Matters, however, documents two key findings that debunk this tired mantra: 1) since 2004, coverage of religion by the media has increased significantly; and 2) this coverage has actually been biased in favor of conservative religious leaders by a factor of nearly 3 to 1.

The new Media Matters for America report – Left Behind: The Skewed Representation of Religion in Major News Media – demonstrates that the clear conservative bias in coverage of religion since 2004:

• Combining newspapers and television, conservative religious leaders were quoted, mentioned, or interviewed in news stories 2.8 times as often as were progressive religious leaders.

• On television news – the three major television networks, the three major cable news channels, and PBS – conservative religious leaders were quoted, mentioned, or interviewed almost 3.8 times as often as progressive leaders.

• In major newspapers, conservative religious leaders were quoted, mentioned, or interviewed 2.7 times as often as progressive leaders.

(You can check out the highlights of the Media Matters press conference here.)

What are progressives to make of this? One response would be to concede the religious ground to the conservatives and simply lament the increased coverage of religion, which seems to bring in its wake increased coverage of conservative viewpoints. But one of the most exciting things happening in progressive politics today is that political progressives are remembering (even if the media are still coming around) that “religious” and “conservative”, “Christian” and “Republican” are not synonyms. Progressives are awakening from their short-term amnesia to remember that the civil rights movement, the women’s movement, and the abolitionist movement—in fact virtually all major progressive political movements in American history—have had influential progressive religious voices helping to lead the charge.

Progressives are also realizing that the American religious landscape is much more diverse than the skewed media coverage leads the public to believe. Just a glimpse of some findings from the American Values Survey conducted in 2006 by the Center for American Values in Public Life illuminates our real religious diversity:

• The vast majority (9 in 10) Americans consider themselves religious, and most (50%) Americans are Religious Centrists.

• Religious Traditionalists—the voices overrepresented by the media—only represent 18% of Americans.

• Progressive Religious Modernists weigh in at 15% of the population, nearly matching the size of Traditionalists that too many assume are the whole of religion.

• Even among conservative religious groups such as white Evangelicals, only 44% said that conservative religious leaders like Pat Robertson and James Dobson represented their views.

• Despite the insistence by conservative religious leaders that religious Americans cared mostly about hot-button cultural issues, AVS found that more than 8 in 10 Americans agree that too many religious leaders use religion to talk about abortion and gay rights and don’t talk enough about more important things like loving your neighbor and caring for the poor.

So, progressives need not lament the increased coverage of religion—an important and influential part of American life—but the Media Matters study demonstrates that we need to demand better, balanced coverage that fairly portrays the voices that are both religious and progressive. Fortunately, there progressive religious leaders have been organizing and working to educate the media through efforts like Red Letter Christians, Faith and Public Life’s Voicing Faith Media Bureau, and Catholic Alliance for the Common Good’s Voices for the Common Good Speaker’s Bureau.

Progressives should encourage a more informed media that will not only paint a more accurate portrait of religion in America but it will also give the American public a more accurate understanding of what religious Americans care about—a broader religious agenda that goes beyond conservative values and hot-button issues to include progressive values and other moral issues like the budget, poverty, the war, and health care.

Labels: media, religion