Mondays with Marilynne: "Let the Poore be Mainteined"

President Obama presented Marilynne Robinson with the National Humanities Medal in 2013.

“Well, what is a Christian, after all? Can we say that most of us are defined by the belief that Jesus Christ made the most gracious gift of his life and death for our redemption? Then what does he deserve from us? He said we are to love our enemies, to turn the other cheek. Granted, these are difficult teachings. But does our most gracious Lord deserve to have his name associated with concealed weapons and stand-your-ground laws, things that fly in the face of his teaching and example? Does he say anywhere that we exist primarily to drive an economy and flourish in it? He says precisely the opposite. Surely we all know this. I suspect that the association of Christianity with positions that would not survive a glance at the Gospels or the Epistles is opportunistic, and that if the actual Christians raised these questions those whose real commitments are to money and hostility and potential violence would drop the pretense and walk away.” --Marilynne Robinson, qtd. by Robert Long, The American Conservative, 10/15/2013

Last week on Groupthink, we introduced a new series, “Mondays with Marilynne.” In the series introduction, we took a quick look at Robinson’s faith, literature values, and cultural impact. I referred a few times, in fact, to Robinson’s most famous fan, the President of the United States. 

When President Obama presented the National Humanities Medal in 2013, he addressed the recipients: “Your writings have changed me--I think for the better.” Then, turning directly to Robinson, he said, “I believe that Marilynne.” Since then, Obama has quoted Robinson in his weekly addresses and, most movingly, in his eulogy for the Reverend Clementa Pinckney (an important and deeply Christian sermon in itself).

While Robinson’s novels are not political manifestos, and people of all political persuasions have found great beauty and meaning in her words, it is worth spending some time this week looking over her political convictions and their relationship to her Christian faith.

Marilynne Robinson is nothing if not politically vocal. While she is well known in the world of American literature, fewer people know that, as political philosopher Peter Lawler so rightly notes, “Robinson is quite the theologian, historian and essayist, and she has devoted herself to recovering--pretty much on her own and against every grain--our authentic Puritan/Calvinist tradition [in American civic discourse].”* 

Robinson’s unique political vision is rooted in a sophisticated reading of the Bible, Calvinist theology, and the Protestant heritage of the United States. She does not hesitate to draw from the Christian gospel implications for policy on social services, income disparity, racial justice, gun control, and military spending, to name a few of the issues she has weighed in on over the years.

Robert Long of The American Conservative (whose coverage of Robinson’s work I highly recommend in spite of any ideological disagreements we might have), traces the roots of Robinson’s social thought to Calvin’s statement in The Institutes of the Christian Religion that “the image of God by which [your neighbor] is recommended to you deserves your surrender of yourself and all you possess.” In fact, she even traces the origins of liberal democracy to what many today consider an unlikely source: the Pentateuch.

“Only the tradition of Moses integrated civil law into the religious mythos, the sacred narrative,” she writes in her essay “Open Thy Hand Wide: Moses and the Origins of American Liberalism”. “For this reason it has the singular inflection of an attentive, passionate--and singular--divine voice. In what other body of law could compliance be urged with the phrase ‘for you know the heart of the stranger’?” (When I Was a Child I Read Books, 71).

Robinson is no biblical literalist. She shows a perfectly rational awareness of the many shortcomings of our forebears in faith. She does not “think we should stone witches.” But, in Robinson’s own words again, “if you choose to value one or two verses in Leviticus over the enormous, passionate calls for social justice that you find right through the Old Testament, that’s primitive.” 

(Here, Robinson addresses the true motives of those on the far right who believe they can safely ignore the biblical imperative to care for the orphan and widow while tossing about a few favorite verses in argument against abortion or gay marriage, but her words should be equally stinging to that portion of the progressive community that dismisses out of hand the possibility that religion could have anything to contribute to the common good.)

For Robinson, the centrality of law in Israel’s traditions and the development of a “rule of law” in Western culture are both results of a “high valuation of life in the world and in community,” a valuation we may acquire from a faithful reading of our religious traditions. Such a valuation will lead most naturally to a policy of liberalism in the oldest sense of the word--open-handedness, the willingness to “Give to everyone who begs from you, and … not refuse anyone who wants to borrow from you” (Matthew 5:42).

Since she enjoys an enormous audience, which includes a fair number of conservative Christians, Robinson often receives criticism for her political statements. For instance, one of my colleagues who attended Calvin College's Festival of Faith and Writing a few years ago tells me she had to field a question from an audience member who said her speech "could have been ghost-written by Bill Moyers and aired on PBS," a fact which apparently destroyed her credibility with much of the assembled audience.

Robinson reportedly answered, "I don't recognize any other obligation than to say what it is true."

*Peter Lawler, "Tocqueville and Robinson in Defense of the Puritans' Sunday," Society 45.2 (September 2009), 445.

Marriage and the Church: A Mainline Response

This post is part of Groupthink’s conversation on the questions Obergefell v. Hodges. The first essay in this series was written by Logann Merritt. The second, a moderate evangelical response by Marshall Johns, may be found here. Christoph’s essay below responds from a mainline Protestant point of view.

As a life-long resident of rural Missouri, last week was not a good week to be on Facebook. For days on end, I found my newsfeed flooded with links to vitriolic conservative articles with titles like “The Roots of Marriage’s Redefinition,” “The Supreme Court and Religious Liberty: Reason for Concern,” and “Why Homosexuality is Not a Sin Like Any Other.” These responses from my conservative coreligionists were disheartening, but predictable.

Equally predictable were the debates that followed in the comment threads for these posts. The conservative line usually boiled down to some variation of the old bumper sticker cliche: “God said it. I believe it. That settles it.” The progressive response was essentially, “Yes, but isn’t religion supposed to be about acceptance and love and not judging others?”

Groupthink’s own Logann Merritt used one variation of the latter argument in his own response, “Same Sex Marriage and the Christian Church.” Merritt quite correctly points out the hypocrisy of those who insist we must toe the line on Scripture’s statements on homosexuality, but not on other matters of marriage and sexuality addressed in sacred writ.** He points to the need for a hermeneutic that reads Scripture through Jesus-lenses, Jesus “the embodiment of the God of love.”

While I find myself in substantial agreement with Merritt’s main principles, I believe he is mistaken to assume that biblical interpretation is the only pertinent factor informing conservative Christians’ view of gay marriage and same-sex sexual activity in general. The same assumption is present in Matthew Vines’ best-seller, God and the Gay Christian. In spite of Vines’ excellent treatment of the six biblical passages referencing same-sex sexual behavior, he still fails to move beyond the questions of hermeneutics to a thoroughgoing examination of the history, culture, and socialization process which informs American Christians’ views of sex and sexuality.

Merritt takes an important step in the right direction, though, when he states that he doesn’t believe same-sex relationships are sinful “unless these relationships bring harm and destruction to the people in them, which could just as easily be said of heterosexual relationships.”

In most moderate to progressive evangelical discourse, examination of Scripture gives way to the conclusion that gay and lesbian relationships are acceptable to God provided they are committed, monogamous relationships based on Christian love and mutuality. This is a step in the right direction, but, in my view, does not go far enough in developing a coherent and authentically Christ-like sexual ethics.

The most important step for Christians right now is to move beyond a monogamy-promiscuity model of thinking about sexuality (with all the debates about “sexual purity” that come with it) and toward a model which prioritizes the health and wellbeing of individuals and relationships. I believe that monogamous marriage and celibacy (for those who are called to it and accept it willingly) are beautiful expressions of sexuality in the Church, but I am not willing to label all sexual acts or sexualities outside those contexts as sinful a priori. I would also stress that wedding bands do not in themselves give all sexual acts between those who wear them God’s stamp of approval. Charity, consent, and reverence for the image of God in the other person are all essential elements of authentically Christian sexual acts. The sacrament of marriage affirms, but does not magically confer those elements.

If Christianity hopes to survive in a culture that is growing increasingly aware of humanity’s amazing diversity of sexual expressions and gender identities, then the first step for Christians is to reexamine not simply the “rules” governing sex to which we have historically held, but the very principles at the heart of our ethics, principles I am sure Logann alludes to when he urges a hermeneutic with Jesus at the center.

So what does Obergefell v. Hodges mean for progressive Christians? Perhaps that our culture is heading in the right direction, but still falls far short of full-bodied Christian charity.

**As an aside, I found myself a bit irritated that Merritt repeatedly uses the inclusive abbreviation "LGBTQ*" when he really only discusses matters addressing the "LG" part of the equation.

Same-Sex Marriage and the Christian Church

First, let me start off by reminding everyone that every blog post ever written is really just an opinion formed by experience, study, and personal values. At least, that’s my opinion. Therefore, please do not read this and think that I am presenting the official position of some church/denomination or other institution. I am simply writing on a subject that was handed to me and I have thoughts on. You are free to agree or disagree.

In light of the recent SCOTUS decision, I will be yet another blogger who presents his thoughts on the issue. In my opinion, it should be a non-issue, but I’ll get to that later.

Gay marriage is now legal in all 50 states. Some people are thrilled, and some are very disturbed. I fall into the former category. My understanding of what this legalization entails is simply that gay and lesbian Americans are legally allowed to obtain marriage licenses in all 50 states. It is not my understanding that churches are required by law to perform ceremonies for those couples against the church’s will. Churches can already refuse to marry couples whether gay or straight, and I don’t believe that is changing. The “rights” of the church are not being encroached upon as far as I am concerned, so why is everybody getting so upset?

All of that being said, how should the Christian church respond to this new ruling? Well, I’ll put it simply: how about with love? Shouldn’t that be our first reaction to anyone if we are truly eager to imitate the person of Jesus? It is no secret that the ones primarily calling out against this decision are Christians.

The Bible seems as good a place to start as any. I will share one brief thought on the hermeneutic I use to read the Bible. I read every word in the Bible through the lens of Jesus. Jesus is the Word of God, not the Bible. Perhaps I will write another post on this subject in the future.

The Bible is just about the only thing that causes Christians to think and act the way they towards the LGBTQ* community. The Bible addresses this subject very vaguely in six places. Let me say that again: the Bible addresses homosexuality very vaguely—in its 66 books—exactly six times. That’s it. Now let me contrast that with the literally hundreds (perhaps thousands) of references to things like caring for the poor and the downtrodden, people groups in our country that are largely ignored by the Christian community. It is worth it to add that Jesus—our prime model as Christians—never mentions the subject of homosexuality. Never. Now, of these few references we do have in our Bible, every single one of them refers to the act of intercourse between two people of the same sex. None of them reference any sort of relationship or background.

Seeing as these few places in the Bible are the entire foundation on which Christians against this issue stand, the fact these verses describe and prohibit only the act of sex should be somewhat enlightening. In essence, what Christians are doing when they cry out against the LGBTQ* community, calling them sinful, is taking their humanity out of the picture. Christians reduce a gay man or woman solely to the act of sex. Does sex define a relationship? A marriage? Would you say that about your own marriage? Your parents’ marriage? I sincerely doubt that. So the way I see it is that Christians are taking a small handful of references in a collection of books that is over two millennia old, and twisting them and enhancing them in order to use them for something they were never intended for in the first place.

It is just plain hypocritical to argue for a Biblical law based stance on marriage when our culture has progressed past an enormous number of other laws clearly laid out in the Bible. This includes other laws for marriage that were to be followed. In numerous places in the Pentateuch, these are some examples of laws of marriage: a woman whose husband has died and has not yet borne a son is required to marry her husband’s brother under law; a slave owner could unite a male and female slave and the female slave would then be required by law to submit sexually to her new forced husband; a male soldier could take a foreign woman for his wife if she was a virgin, and this woman would be required by law to submit sexually to her new husband; finally, and perhaps most disturbingly, a virgin who is raped was required by law to marry her rapist. These were all laws at some point in time in the Bible, if we are going to adhere to one prohibiting two males from marrying, let us joyfully adhere to these others as well.

Moving on, let us look at Jesus. I have already mentioned that Jesus never brings the issue up, so the people who read the Bible as a collection of timeless truths on display for all humanity to see and follow are already coming up short.

Jesus is the embodiment of the God of love; Christians of all shapes and sizes typically agree on that. In the Gospels, we read story after story of Jesus showing love, mercy, and compassion to those around him. We see him seeking out the outcasts of society. We see him surrounding himself with prostitutes, with the diseased, with the homeless, and with many other kinds of sinners. We also see Jesus loving those people with abandon. Does Jesus look at the prostitute and think: I am so thrilled with the healthy and loving way you are living your life? No, probably not. Yet those are the ones he seeks out. Never does he call attention to this “sinful lifestyle” they are living. That would be rude, dehumanizing, and unnecessary. That thought process is what caused me to reject “hate the sin, love the sinner.” I have come to realize that is a terribly unhealthy motto. The attempt of that motto is to let the LGBTQ* community know that some Christians accept them but still think that they are living in sin. What does that communicate to the LGBTQ* community? It communicates that even those Christians who will accept them don’t think they are deserving of the love of God. That is not helpful; that is harmful. People who argue that they “accept” the LGBTQ* community and do not “judge” them but still believe they live a sinful lifestyle have in fact already judged them and already deemed them not acceptable to God. That took place before they made a conscious decision to not do it.

Seeing as how Jesus summed up the entire Old Testament law in two commandments, love God and love your neighbor as yourself, it would seem to me that Jesus simplified some things. The word neighbor is in no way exclusive; it means anyone. If the Christian church truly valued the only two commandments Jesus gave, then once they see how harmful these dismissive attitudes are toward the LGBTQ* community, perhaps they will realize they could love their neighbor better than that.

I personally don’t believe in any way that same-sex relationships of any kind are sinful in God’s eyes, unless of course these relationships bring harm and destruction to the people in them, which could just as easily be said of heterosexual relationships. Two loving people in a consensual relationship that bears love and joy are in no way sinning, regardless of the act of sex.

Though most Christians are bound to disagree with that statement, I don’t think it takes much to see the harm the church is doing to the LGBTQ* community with the way they are acting. The Christian community should open their eyes to the fact that they are picking and choosing when it comes to the Bible. Why is this the biggest issue? When there are starving and homeless people all around us, why is the church ignoring them and spending all their energy condemning another minority? Jesus set no example that encouraged that kind of discrimination. Even if the church does not change its stance on the sinfulness of same-sex relationships, it could get a lot better at showing love and acceptance to that community.

This new SCOTUS decision is a marvelous opportunity for the Christian church to do this. We can love all the people around us, even in our disagreements.

Rural Americans and Climate Change

Most rural Americans hold an intense appreciation for the natural world. Hunting, fishing, camping, hiking, and related activities are popular and beloved pieces of our cultural heritage. Many children spend their summer days adventuring in the woods, building forts and only returning home for lunch and dinner. Farming is considered an honorable career choice. Because of this love for nature, most rural Americans have at least a rudimentary knowledge of ecology and conservation. You’re only supposed to hunt during specific times of the year. You should only kill a certain number of a certain type of animal. You shouldn’t throw trash in the local fishing hole. If you go camping, clean up after yourself. Many country folk, especially farmers, have an even more detailed understanding of their local ecosystems. In rural America, nature is an object of deep appreciation and respect. With this attitude towards nature, one would expect most rural Americans to enthusiastically support the Pope's message in his recent Encyclical on climate change.

Despite their intense love for nature, however, most rural folk are stereotyped as being fierce climate change deniers. Although this stereotype does not hold true for all rural Americas, it is grounded in reality. A great many people in America’s rural areas deny climate change, or at least anthropogenic (man-caused) climate change. What accounts for this seeming contradiction? One reason is political. Quite simply, climate change is strongly associated with liberal politics. As absurd as it may be to politicize science, climate change is, for better or for worse, strongly connected to political liberalism. Former Democratic politician Al Gore was one of the most famous and powerful voices regarding climate change in the 2000's. Recently, United States President Barack Obama called climate change “an urgent and growing threat to our national security.” Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, a contender for the Democratic presidential nomination, has made climate change a central issue in his political platform. Numerous other liberal voices, both within the government and the media, have endorsed action to counteract climate change.

Conversely, conservatives have been more skeptical of anthropogenic climate change. Unlike the Democratic Party platform, the Republican Party platform avoids any grave pronouncements about climate change. The platform advocates “responsibility” and “common-sense” reactions to environmental issues, but avoids mentioning the causes or severity of climate change. Many conservatives use stronger words. Conservative blogger and columnist John Hawkins flat-out calls climate change a “hoax”. When asked about man-made climate change, Republican politician Rick Perry said, “I’m not afraid to say I’m a skeptic about that.” Unlike liberals, conservatives do not seem particularly united on the issue of climate change, but there is general skepticism of climate change among conservatives. This politicization of climate change is relevant because rural America is significantly more conservative than liberal. Political debates in America tend to be rather heated, and this has put climate change in the unfortunate position of being a fiercely debated political topic, rather than a purely scientific issue to be studied and investigated. Because rural Americans are more likely to be conservative than liberal, this contributes to skepticism of climate change in rural areas.

According to NASA, “97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities.” This statement, unfortunately, loses some of its impact in rural America. It’s not because country people are anti-science per se; the relationship between rural Americans and the scientific community is a bit more complicated than that. Evangelical Christianity is quite popular in rural regions of America, particularly in the South and parts of the Midwest. Unfortunately, the relationship between the scientific community and Evangelical Christians is often tense, if not outright hostile. The Southern Baptist Convention, the largest Protestant denomination in the United States, is definitively Evangelical, and they fiercely deny the theory of evolution, despite scientific consensus in favor of the theory. (Keep in mind there is a distinction between belief in evolution and an atheistic worldview, and not all Evangelicals reject evolution.) This conflict between Evangelicals and scientists continues to this day, and runs over into the climate change debate. Evangelical Christians are far less likely than most Americans to believe in anthropogenic climate change, and I believe this can be chalked up to the (unnecessary) conflict between Evangelicals and the scientific community. There is a disturbing trend in Evangelical Christianity towards the belief that there is an inherent conflict between science and faith. This leads Evangelicals, who make up a large chunk of America’s rural population, to reject not only evolution, but climate change as well.

To understand rural attitudes towards climate change, there are several things to be aware of. Rural America is very politically conservative, and rural Americans generally associate climate change with liberal politics. Whether or not this association is fair or accurate is irrelevant; climate change is seen as a major liberal talking point. As a result, many rural Americans deny climate change, seeing it as more of a political issue than a scientific issue. Also, Evangelical Christianity is a major cultural influence in rural America. Because Evangelicals have a rocky relationship with the scientific community, many rural Americans are skeptical of scientific conclusions and theories, especially those that challenge their faith. Rural Americans are less likely than other Americans to accept man-made climate change simply because they don’t trust the people telling them about it. Many rural Americans see climate change as a tool used by their ideological opponents to force a secular and/or liberal worldview. Perhaps Pope Francis can help change all of that.