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.

This is My Father's World: The Church in Light of Obergefell v. Hodges

This post is part of Groupthink's coverage of the June 26 Supreme Court ruling. In our first post on this topic, Logann Merritt argued in favor of full acceptance of the LGBTQ* community on the basis of Jesus' radical inclusivity. In this follow-up, Marshall Johns represents a more moderate view with a poignant reminder of the radical difference between the kingdom of this world and the Kingdom of God.

A quick preface: this post is heavily influenced by the applied realism of Leo Tolstoy's The Kingdom of God is Within You. This is one of the most influential works I have read, and would encourage anyone with a desire to learn about nonviolence and the Church as separated from the State in a fairly Augustinian manner to check this book out. Much of Tolstoy's theological work is not without contention; then again whose is, especially if read critically?

By now, it will have been impossible for anyone to have found this page on the internet without knowing about the Supreme Court's ruling on June 26 to legalize gay marriage in the United States of America. Having read some of the statements from the Justices of our High Court that the New York Times posted shortly after this decision was publicized, as long as the Court thinks they were within their legal bounds set by the United States Code and Constitution, I say good for them. 

I will say that again: I am happy for the United States Government to end a form of discrimination denying the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to millions of Americans.

This may sound shocking coming from a person who is, in all honesty, still humbly trying to work through the theological and biblical implications of the new orthodoxy in sexual ethics. It may sound to some like I am straddling the fence, wanting to stay grounded in "traditionalism" yet appear "relevant."
That is just fine by me since all Christians are straddling a fence: considering the challenges of our "dual citizenship" in our current geo-political setting and in God's current Kingdom on earth, such tensions are almost inevitable. In Paul's letter to the Philippian church, he sends them an encouraging word about where their citizenship resides. Although they were quite obviously a part of the Roman empire (an outpost where retired Roman military officers lived, in fact), Paul says to them in 3:20 "But our citizenship[or commonwealth] is in heaven..." He beseeches this church to remember that their ultimate calling is to the Kingdom of God, not to their current political regime. 

This sentiment is reiterated in Romans 13:1, where Paul calls for the church in Roman to "be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God..." Let's not forget that Paul wrote this letter to the church in Rome during a time when followers of The Way were beginning to face heavy persecution from Roman authority. Yet Paul tells these people to not resist the government. Why? God's authority over His Kingdom is the authority we need to be concerned about, which means our current government should not hinder us from being a beacon of His hope and love to those around us. 

(If you read the rest of chapter 13, you see that Paul thinks God is ultimately doing what He wants with governmental powers. Yeah, its confusing stuff sometimes).

Certain groups of believers in the United States have forgotten that our government, in all its potential for good through democracy and representation, is ultimately a representative of its political groups, not God. God's Kingdom and the kingdom of the Stars and Stripes are not synonymous, and that is alright; I would go so far as to argue that it is better for the integrity of the Church. We should not conflate politicians and prophets. 

What I am saying does have a bit of Anabaptist flare to it. On some days, I do agree with Menno Simons that Christians have no duty in politics, and I understand that I could be charged with promoting an idealism leading to inaction and complacency in the Church, a sort of "let's just let this thing go since there is nothing we can do for it" approach. But maybe there is a wisdom in letting go of some things that we think are inalienable rights, endowed by our Creator, and I would encourage any believer who thinks that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are our highest calling to reread Philippians and 1 John. 

What we need to see as the Church in this decision is not "what Constitutional rights were taken from us" or "how this country is godless and/or going to Hell." 

What we need to see in this matter is how the idea of loving our neighbor (institutionally) has changed in light of this. We need to see the new cultural situation as a new chance for us to show God's love for the world, not as an opportunity to take pot shots at viewpoints that are different from ours. Our world may never feel the same again in light of this decision, but that is just fine. I pray that, in the days to come, we will find encouragement in the words of the old hymn:

1. This is my Father's world,
and to my listening ears
all nature sings, and round me rings
the music of the spheres.
This is my Father's world:
I rest me in the thought
of rocks and trees, of skies and seas;
his hand the wonders wrought.

2. This is my Father's world,
the birds their carols raise,
the morning light, the lily white,
declare their maker's praise.
This is my Father's world:
he shines in all that's fair;
in the rustling grass I hear him pass;
he speaks to me everywhere.

3. This is my Father's world.
O let me ne'er forget
that though the wrong seems oft so strong,
God is the ruler yet.
This is my Father's world:
why should my heart be sad?
The Lord is King; let the heavens ring!
God reigns; let the earth be glad!

Economics, Politics, Morality and Creation: A Response to Taylor's Review

Jeb Bush responded to the Pope’s Encyclical at a town hall meeting after it was released. He said, “I don’t get economic policy from my bishops or my cardinals or from my pope. I think religion ought to be about making us better as people, and not about getting into the political realm.” Rick Santorum did Jeb one better and said that he was more qualified to make a judgement on climate change than His Holiness. Greg Gutfeld, a talking head for the show ‘Fox and Friends,’ said that Pope Francis was a malthusian and had a “Marxist background.”

Needless to say, the political reaction from the right is unsurprising. Conservatives worldwide have consistently been skeptical of climate change. In fact, less than half of Republican Roman Catholics in the U.S. believe in human cause climate change; that, compared to 80% of Democrat Catholics that do. As Taylor pointed out, the encyclical was long, and we don't usually think about morality in terms of changing how we use technology. By the way, its obvious that Mr. Gutfeld did not even take the time to read the Encyclical, since the Pope specifically denounces any view that argues populations controls need to be put in place to solve the problem, something Malthus would never say--hopefully Mr. Gutfeld takes Taylor's advice to read the Encyclical for himself. 

It’s hardly surprising that the Encyclical, which is largely a message of unity which calls into question ecological practices that hurt the poorest among us, would divide politics. The energy sector provided over $69 billion last year in campaign contribution to GOP candidates. In Poland, where coal is a primary industry, conservatives are lashing out, worried that cutting off coal could upset their economy and political position. In retaliation, they are telling the Pope to stay out of politics, science, and economics, and stay in the realm of morality.

However, that is exactly what Pope Francis is doing. In the Encyclical, he says, “It is also the mindset of those who say: Let us allow the invisible forces of the market to regulate the economy, and consider their impact on society and nature as collateral damage.” In his theology we are called to be caretakers of the creation we are apart, but our current economic and political epistemology sets us above nature, and so we dominate it rather than nurture it. In fact, the topic of poverty is inseparable from politics and economics!

Indeed, world politics has been consumed with self-interest, and we do desperately need the cultural revolution Pope Francis calls for in his Encyclical. It is easy to see how shallow the morality politics of the modern right in the U.S. have become when they denounce a biblical ecology that is foundational to any theology. As Calvin remarked, “Wherever you look, there is no part of the world however small that does not show some glimmer of beauty…The superb structure of the world acts as a sort of mirror in which we may see God.”

As Taylor beautifully illustrates, the problem is not with coal or oil, it is with our humanity.  So no, Mr. Bush, when economics is the cause of suffering for creation, the Pope’s call is about making us all better stewards.

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.