Alabama and Florida have new Governors who are actively catering to the Christians in their states. Alabama’s Robert Bentley explicitly appealed to his fellow “brothers and sisters” in Christ, unaware that this could be taken badly by anyone who is not in the family. He was subsequently informed that Alabama does, in fact, have a smattering of non Southern Baptists, and did his best to apologize for any hurt feelings.
Governor Rick Scott in Florida is using his government position to further Christianity in the more traditional way – behind the scenes. His new Secretary of the Department of Children and Families is David Wilkins, who also serves as Finance Chairman for Florida Baptist Children’s Homes, which describes itself as an “organization dedicated to providing Christ-centered services to children and families. . .” That’s hardly surprising for a Baptist organization. Wilkins test will come when he has to deal with citizens who are not seeking Christ-centered services.
This certainly doesn’t bode well for same-sex couples in Florida. Gov. Scott has said that adoption should be limited to married couples, using the traditional formulation to exclude homosexuals without saying so. This goes against a state appellate court ruling, which overturned Florida’s unique-in-the-nation rule prohibiting adoption (but not foster parenting) by anyone who is homosexual, and against simple arithmetic, with the number of children needing adoption, on one side of the equation, and the number of married couples willing to adopt, on the other.
These new governors will be pushing the limits of the distinction between Christians and “Christianists,” the term Andrew Sullivan coined to describe Christians who go beyond believing in and acting on their faith, and attempt to impose it on believers and nonbelievers alike through civil law.
They may want to exercise some caution. The First Amendment to the Constitution protects religion from state coercion, but it does something else as well: it protects religions from one another. That’s not necessarily a constitutional matter, but it’s at least as important. You don’t have to search very hard to come up with examples of religions that hold government power in various nations and leverage their power to disadvantage people of other religions.
But that’s nothing compared to the leverage religious believers have over different sects of their own religion. Just because Shiites and Sunnis are both Islamic doesn’t mean they have the same view of religion, or of the state. In fact, divisions within religions may be more intractable and emotionally held than broader religious differences. Henry VIII didn’t fight Rome in order to start a Jewish sect; he felt he was every bit as much a Christian as the corrupt boys on the continent, possibly more so.
Religion can be a special case of epistemic closure. Belief is so personal and interior that it’s easy to lose perspective, or fail to appreciate that others believe very, very different things at their very core, not only about obvious politicized issues, but about God’s grace, itself, and God’s own identity.
And that’s not just true across religions, but within individual sects. Governor Bentley’s Southern Baptist brothers and sisters belong to one of many dozens of Baptist denominations that aren’t always in complete harmony. There are enough Presbyterian denominations that Wikipedia has to alphabetize them.
And individual believers are even more varied. It’s easy to forget that Al Sharpton is a Baptist minister, and that Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and Warren Beatty are all Baptists as well. Catholics are fairly unique in having a single, institutional voice to guide them – one which is widely ignored by actual, practicing Catholics in so many particulars, high among them gay marriage.
The First Amendment is a reminder that a government which can not command religious belief has to be cautious of religious reasoning, itself, which inevitably leads to so many different, but firmly held conclusions. Gov. Bentley’s religious belief is clearly not something he holds lightly, but even in Alabama, it shouldn’t be surprising that in the civil arena, its assertion by the state’s leading political figure is viewed in political terms. Gov. Scott can certainly rely on a large cohort of religious believers who oppose any legal recognition of same-sex couples, but he is not the Minister of Florida, he is its governor.
And homosexual citizens are among his constituents. Religions have the power to deny membership to anyone they wish, but states are different. Christianist governors (and other powerful religious politicians) can’t ignore or exclude lesbians and gay men from the society; they can only use power to rig their rights. And as the non-religious reasons for doing so collapse under ordinary scrutiny, the religious motivations are exposed not only to secular review, but examination by other competing religions and religious thinkers as well.
Those religious debates have both enlightened and inflamed centuries of human progress. But they have not combined well with secular government. The First Amendment has stood as an excellent guardrail between our nation and a noxious religious nihilism. Its wisdom is still evident.
22 Comments for “Brothers and Sisters”
posted by BobN on
“Christianists,” the term Andrew Sullivan coined
He most certianly did not coin the term. Nor, despite his version of history, did he invent the pro-same-sex-marriage movement. Nor did he invent the “conservative” case for gay rights.
posted by Tom on
And as the non-religious reasons for doing so collapse under ordinary scrutiny, the religious motivations are exposed not only to secular review, but examination by other competing religions and religious thinkers as well.
As a man raised outside the Christian tradition (in the 9=1940’s and 1950’s) and remaining apart, two observations:
(1) I do not often hear the voices of Christians who stand in opposition to the conservative Christians, and when I do, it is more whimper than shout. I can’t say that I spend any significant time reading Christian web sites, but I do read the local newspapers of a half dozen towns in rural central Wisconsin on a regular basis. I’ll bet that the ratio of anti-gay letters from conservative Christians to protest letters from supportive Christians runs 24:1. I try to be careful to distinguish conservative Christians from Christians at large, but I can’t say I’d blame anyone who came to the conclusion that modern American Christianity is anti-gay across the board. The supportive Christian voices aren’t heard in the public square.
(2) As the non-religious case for exclusion of gays and lesbians from equal citizenship, and most particularly, marriage, dissolve under the sunlight of scrutiny and reason, the anti-marriage proponents are taking off the assuming veil of “common good”. Good As You published a scan of a recent “Protect Marriage Maryland” mailer, and it is chilling, to say the least.
posted by Jorge on
Catholics are fairly unique in having a single, institutional voice to guide them – one which is widely ignored by actual, practicing Catholics in so many particulars, high among them gay marriage.
Orthodox Catholics do not follow the Pope, and they do actually exist in the US. Roman Catholics merely hold the distinction of being the largest denomination of Christians in this country.
Worth noting just in case you’re setting the stage for an anti-Catholic (oops!) rant.
(1) I do not often hear the voices of Christians who stand in opposition to the conservative Christians, and when I do, it is more whimper than shout.
Are you suggesting that most liberal Democrats are not Christian?
Let’s see, Al Sharpton is Baptist, John Kerry is Catholic, Barack Obama is… well I know he’s Christian, Ted Kennedy was Catholic. To name a few. Really, the character of most Democrats is to disdain public display of religion out of tolerance and separation of church and state concerns. It doesn’t mean they themselves are not Christian.
Anyway, it doesn’t matter which religion gets chastened on this. It’ll help to hold all of them in line later.
posted by Tom on
Tom: I do not often hear the voices of Christians who stand in opposition to the conservative Christians, and when I do, it is more whimper than shout.
Jorge: Are you suggesting that most liberal Democrats are not Christian?
I was sloppy in my language. I do not often hear the voices of Christians speaking as Christians …
posted by Jorge on
No disagreement there.
posted by Tom on
Barack Obama is United Church of Christ.
posted by james on
for starters if the constitution really protected against other religions then gay rights would be solved. many religions have no issues with gay people. so i dont think its a matter of the constitution protecting against other religions. its clear thats the intent. what isnt clear is to the extent that “christianist” are anti america. they are hell bent on trashing the constitution and installing there version of theocracy. the current republican party is a sham… its full of religious zealots who care about nothing but making evangelical type religious laws the new constitution. i dont think many people in the country realize how strong there movement is. this is only the start and they are gaining momentum because if its anything that will bring all these religous zealots under one roof its getting rid of that black gay loving communist socialist muslim lazy black man we have in the whote house.
posted by another steve on
I’m sorry, but the reporting on Bentley’s remarks gives a very distorted picture (by the liberal media and bloggers; gosh, who would have thought), and shows an ignorance about the way evangelicals speak to one another.
For starters, Bentley was speaking at a Baptist church to a Baptist congregation. This was not a state of the state address, or even a campaign address.
He said to this Baptist congregation, “There may be some people here today who do not have living within them the Holy Spiri … But if you have been adopted in God’s family like I have, and like you have if you’re a Christian and if you’re saved, and the Holy Spirit lives within you just like the Holy Spirit lives within me, then you know what that makes? It makes you and me brothers. And it makes you and me brother and sister.”
Bentley added, ”Now I will have to say that, if we don’t have the same daddy, we’re not brothers and sisters. So anybody here today who has not accepted Jesus Christ as their savior, I’m telling you, you’re not my brother and you’re not my sister, and I want to be your brother.”
This is a Christian speaking in church to his fellow Christians, asking them to be true to their shared faith. He is not telling non-Christians what to believe. But it’s easy to distort and ridicule and yell “bigot, bigot” to score political points and liberal cred.
posted by Jorge on
I’m sorry, but the reporting on Bentley’s remarks gives a very distorted picture…
I’m sure it does. It’s still over the line and not approrpriate. Saying people who are not Christian are not your brothers and sisters is a rather extreme and needless lack of diplomacy. When you are giving a public speech as a chief executive, there is no such thing as you’re only speaking to this group of people. You represent everybody, all the time.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Thanks for the clarification, another steve.
The analogy that comes to my mind would be an Orthodox Jewish elected official who said, while speaking to an Orthodox Jewish audience, that Jews who choose not to keep kosher were not “his brothers and sisters.”
Under those circumstances, one might easily predict that there would be an outcry from Reform Jews, and Conservative Jews, and totally secular Jews; perhaps even a few Orthodox Jews might object to the sentiment as being ungenerous.
But you could also take this to the bank: the vast majority of non-Jews wouldn’t give a flying fuck, as they would recognize it (correctly) as an “internal” Jew-to-Jew discussion about Jewish identity.
In the real-life case of Bentley, however, how many people who aren’t Christian, who have no aspirations to become Christian, and who might even object to being mistaken for one of those damn Bible-thumping Christianists, nonetheless got pissed off at being “excluded” from a club that they have no desire to join in the first place?
posted by Jorge on
But you could also take this to the bank: the vast majority of non-Jews wouldn’t give a flying fuck, as they would recognize it (correctly) as an “internal” Jew-to-Jew discussion about Jewish identity.
Possibly, since the entire hypothetical conversation is about whether other Jews are his brothers and sisters, not about whether people who aren’t orthodox are his brothers and sisters. It would implicate his ability to be fair to Jews who don’t observe kosher. And I think would raise questions that are more peculiar to Orthodox Jews than to the Christian majority: does he respect the law of the land or does he stand for a platform of special treatment?
posted by Tom on
Throbert, I don’t see how Bentley’s remarks can be fairly taken as purely intra-Christian, without implications, since it divides the world into two groups — those who who haven “accepted Jesus Christ as their savior” and those who have not.
In evangelical Christian-speak, as I understand it, that distinction excludes (a) men and women within the “born-again” tradition who have not “accepted Jesus Christ as their savior”, (b) Christians outside the “born-again” tradition (e.g. Catholics), and (c) all of us who are outside the Christian faith. That takes Governor Bentley’s statement beyond a purely intra-Christian dimension, in my view.
I do not think that your analogy is on point.
Your analogy is framed, entirely, as an intra-Jewish discussion about the importance of kashrut. That is, of course, an ongoing discussion among the Orthodox, the Conservatives and the Reform, but it has no interested to anyone outside Judaism.
To the extent that Christians within the “born-again” tradition generally draw distinctions between themselves and Christians outside the tradition, your analogy captures the flavor of an Orthodox Governor talking to a Jewish group (presumably Orthodox, because anyone elected Governor would presumably have more moxie than to make such remarks to a Reform group, just as Governor Bentley would no doubt have refrained if he were speaking to a Catholic audience) about an intra-Jewish issue.
However, your analogy misses, entirely, the distinction Jews and Gentiles. Note that Governor Bentley’s remarks had three conditions to “brotherhood”: [1] if you’re a Christian and [2] if you’re saved, and [3] the Holy Spirit lives within you just like the Holy Spirit lives within me. It seems to be that Governor Bentley is making a inter-religious distinction between Christians and non-Christians, as well as an intra-Christian distinction between Christians who are born-again and Christians who are not.
If you treat the discussion as purely intra-Christian, as your analogy does, then, it seems to me, you miss the first of the three conditions entirely, and I think that it is that distinction that has caused comment, not the distinction between the born-again Christian traditions and the other traditions within the Christian faith. So I think your analogy is incomplete.
Having said that, I do not personally worry about Governor Bentley’s remarks. It does seem to me that he was caught up in a burst of evangelical Christian-speak, but probably nothing more than that. I certainly do not care who Governor Bentley considers his “brothers and sisters” or give a whit about his theology to the extent that he treats all citizens alike.
I care about what Bentley does as Governor. If he bases his decisions as Governor entirely on non-religious criteria — the common good so to speak — I do not care what he thinks about those of us who are Jews, or about Catholics or about anyone else.
I worry a lot more about Mike Huckabee, and his insistence that the United States Constitution should conform to his understanding of “God’s law”. Huckabee is the kind of Christian who keeps me sleeping with one eye open.
As an aside, I think that your suggestion that a Jewish Governor making similar remarks (that is, remarks explicitly excluding Christians and other Gentiles from “brotherhood”) would not be noticed is far off base. I think that there would be an uproar from conservative Christians. But Jews don’t generally talk that way, so I don’t think it will ever come up.
posted by another steve on
I think there is some confusion here. When Gov. Bentley refers to Brothers and Sisters in Christ, he is using common evangelical language for the community of believers. Those members (again, of the Baptist congregation he is addressing) who don’t accept Christ in their hearts and who are not born again are not truly part of the community of believers, of the shared spiritual fellowship.
The secular press and his critics have chosen to interpret “brothers and sisters” not in this evangelical sense, but as if he were talking in a generic sense about someone not being his brother or sister in the wider public community, or the polity. I don’t think that is his meaning and those familiar with evanglical sermonizing wouldn’t think so.
By the way, I have no illusions that Gov. Bentley won’t be terrible and totally anti-gay equality. I just don’t like to see him attacked over language that is being misinterpreted, or scatter shot demeaning of Christian spirituality.
posted by BobN on
“Brothers and sisters in Christ” absolutely does have a different meaning than “brothers and sisters” BUT he didn’t say “in Christ”. You blame the media for failing to put words into his mouth that, to me, are not quite so obvious as you assert:
“There may be some people here today who do not have living within them the Holy Spirit,” Bentley said. ”But if you have been adopted in God’s family like I have, and like you have if you’re a Christian and if you’re saved, and the Holy Spirit lives within you just like the Holy Spirit lives within me, then you know what that makes? It makes you and me brothers. And it makes you and me brother and sister.”
Bentley added, ”Now I will have to say that, if we don’t have the same daddy, we’re not brothers and sisters. So anybody here today who has not accepted Jesus Christ as their savior, I’m telling you, you’re not my brother and you’re not my sister, and I want to be your brother.”
His formulation is a repudiation of the clear words of Jesus Christ in the gospels. He seems to be confusing Christ, as opposed to God the Father, for his “daddy”.
Whatever the contortions of Evangelicalism, all men are brothers in Christianity. Now, we may be lesser brothers cuz we don’t adhere to the nonsense of Evangelical Protestantism — and that may really annoy the good Gov — but we remain brothers.
posted by Jimmy on
I am accustomed to the old time Missionary Baptist way and I can say, quite comfortably, that when one of these folks tells you that you are not his brother, take him for his word.
While there remain doctrinal differences between MBs and SBs, they’re cut from the same cloth. They view non-born again people as still lost, not Christian, and they will split Hell wide open when they die just like all the Popes, Muhammad, and the Buddha did (this is a paraphrase from an actual sermon I’ve heard many times from many preachers).
Do not doubt the distinction being made by the Gov. He means it.
posted by BobN on
Evangelical-speak or not, the idea that all humans aren’t the Governor’s brothers and sisters is a contradiction of Christ himself (or Himself, if you’re so disposed). The Jewish hypothetical discussed above is hardly on point in any theological comparison.
posted by Tom on
I don’t think that Throbert was trying to make a theological comparison (who could, given the thousands of Christian denominations at odds with one another) but instead a political comparison. My problem is that is comparison compared apples and oranges, and didn’t address the concerns about Bentley’s remarks.
As I watch the struggles within the Republican Party over the last decade or so, what I find disturbing is (1) the frequency with which Republican politicians suggest that ours is a Christian county and argue our country’s laws and Constitution should be shaped by “God’s law” as understood within a particular and (I hope, anyway) minority Christian tradition, rather than based squarely on non-religious considerations, and (2) the lack of loud challenge of that line of thinking from other Republicans.
I don’t have to tell you what would happen if a Jewish politician started arguing that our country’s laws should be based on Jewish religious law, or if a Muslim politician started arguing that our country’s laws should be based on Shariah. So why should conservative Christians get a pass?
posted by BobN on
So why should conservative Christians get a pass?
Not only should they not get a pass, they especially shouldn’t get one when the excuse is based on a hypothetical theological position which doesn’t, in fact, exist.
posted by Tom on
… a hypothetical theological position which doesn’t, in fact, exist …
I’m not sure what you mean, BobN, by hypothetical theological position, and I have no interest in involving myself in intramural Christian argument. I’m not going to become involved in a discussion of what someone must believe to be Christian, or what Christ believed. It is outside my purview and, in my view, irrelevant.
It isn’t anyone’s theological position, hypothetical or not, that concerns me. Everyone, politician or not, is entitled to believe whatever they want about theology.
What concerns me is the attempt to form the laws of our nation on a theology — any theology — rather than on religiously-neutral considerations of the common good.
Remarriage after divorce is a good example, to my mind.
Many (most?) Christians understand remarriage after divorce to be adultery.
If our laws were based on the Christian theology of marriage as understood by those Christians, then remarriage after divorce would not be permitted. Yet we permit it, in all states, and always have.
Why? Because it is almost self-evident that our society has a strong interest in legally protecting couples who are living together and raising children, and the children of those couples.
Any yet, outside that obvious arena, we frequently hear some politicians of the far right talking about imposing, or perhaps superimposing, “God’s law” onto our country’s law. To me, that is wrongheaded, to say the least, and something that I think should be called out and never get a pass, no matter who says it.
I am not talking, here, about people’s religious motivations and the ways in which that shapes their political views and behaviors. Folks like President Obama, who adhere to denominations with a strong “social justice” tradition, will reflect that background in their politics, as will folks like Teddy Kennedy, who was strongly influenced by the Catholic “social justice” teaching. Obviously, people’s religious beliefs motivate them, for good or ill.
What I am concerned about is forming our laws around what “God wants …” in someone’s opinion rather than “what is good for the country”.
posted by BobN on
I agree with you. I was referring to the false comparison to Orthodox Jewish theology that Throbert was making.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
David Link > “Belief is so personal and interior that it’s easy to lose perspective, or fail to appreciate that others believe very, very different things at their very core, not only about obvious politicized issues, but about God’s grace, itself, and God’s own identity….”
David, you often accomplish that unique liberal cliche of calling the other kettle black while adding layers of carbonized smoke to your own outer shell, but this post takes the cake, the beaters and the kitchen with stove, sink and frig tossed in for good measure.
I would say that you ought to begin with a better analysis and review of why it is that gays are so often outraged at the constitutional right of fellow citizens to openly state their religious thoughts or perspectives… the guarantee is freedom of religion, not the liberal inversion and bastardization of the constitutional principle so that’s it becomes freedom FROM religion.
I think conventional farLeft gays like you are usually outraged about anything remotely religious because you’ve turned your back on God, separated yourselves from society by being staunchly anti-religion and find solace in undercutting or demeaning any moral code that doesn’t promote narcissistic self-interest first above all else. When you offer that the pro-religion political leaders cited here fail to appreciate and respect the views of others… you’ve indicted yourself and the movement you fondly embrace because that’s easily your core operating principle –played out day after day, issue after issue.
I’d encourage you to take some time to reflect on why it is that you think godlessness hasn’t become your own form of religion and why your intolerance toward those of Faith is so often a practicing principle of conventional gayLefties like you.
posted by Jimmy on
“I think conventional farLeft gays like you are usually outraged about anything remotely religious because you’ve turned your back on God, separated yourselves from society by being staunchly anti-religion and find solace in undercutting or demeaning any moral code that doesn’t promote narcissistic self-interest first above all else.”
Because someone turns their back on a backward, insular brand of belief does not mean they have turned their back on God. It might even draw one closer. It is certainly not for you to say. That you would call someone else a narcissist is too cute.