HERE’S AN ARTICLE BY HARVARD LAW PROFESSION WILLIAM J. STUNTZ.
He’s an Evangelical. And a professor at a way left school.
Favorite quotes from Stuntz:
A lot of my church friends think universities represent the
forces of darkness. Law schools — my corner of the academic world —
are particularly suspect. A fellow singer in a church choir once asked
me what I did for a living. When I told her, she said, "A Christian
lawyer? Isn’t that sort of like being a Christian prostitute? I mean,
you can’t really do that, right?" She wasn’t kidding. And if I had said
no, you don’t understand; I’m a law professor, not a lawyer, I’m pretty
sure that would not have helped matters. ("Oh, so you train people to
be prostitutes…")You hear the same kinds of comments running in the other direction.
Some years ago a faculty colleague and I were talking about religion
and politics, and this colleague said "You know, I think you’re the
first Christian I’ve ever met who isn’t stupid." My professor friend
wasn’t kidding either. I’ve had other conversations like these —
albeit usually a little more tactful — on both sides, a dozen times
over the years. Maybe two dozen. People in each of these two worlds
find the other frightening, and appalling.
I’m an academic-type and a committed Christian as well, and I have some
of the same perceptions about how the two world talk past each other,
often in counter-productive ways. But some of what Stuntz suggests
strikes me as simply naive, particularly when it comes to the political
arena.
He suggests that redstaters and bluestaters can find common cause on a variety of issues, including principally helping the poor, which is a concern for both.
True.
But I find his "purple state" advocacy a little premature. For the foreseeable future, results will be very limited in making common cause between secular liberals and committed Christians for a whole host of reasons. Among them are these:
- However pressing the need for relieving poverty may be, committed Christians cannot ignore the blood of countless babies being shed in our land each day. The abortion issue superdominates the political map. Until that is settled on the pro-life side (such a settlement being a long, long way off), Christians cannot allow themselves to be distracted by lesser issues.
- There is frequently a fundamental disagreement about the best way to address the problem of poverty. Stuntz alludes to this, but I don’t think he’s got a practical solution. Just as you can’t wean committed Christians off abortion any time soon, I don’t think you can wean bluestaters off the idea of ending poverty via government handouts any time soon.
- The bluestaters have a worldview that is fundamentally hostile to Christianity. Until militant secularists stop trying to push religion out of public life and stop insulting the intelligence of Christians, not much reconciliation is possible.
This isn’t to say that Stuntz’s ideas aren’t worth considering (they are) or that there ain’t any common cause to be made (there is), I just think the amount for the foreseeable future is quite limited.
I understand that someone who works at such a bluestate institution as Harvard University and who attends such a redstate institution as an Evangelical church might want to get the two groups working together, but until points (1) and (3) above are addressed, it isn’t going to be possible to make much common cause on point (2).
This article was a little strange.
Those of us who live in New England states should realize that Christianity basically doesn’t exist here. After the election, I had to hear from my “catholic” friends about how all the “Christians” should move to the south. (I’m not making this up.) Support for abortion is not a betrayal of their principles, it is their principle. So the idea that there is just “polarization” and a “lack of understand” is silly.
Of course, most Republicans belive in helping the poor and using government to do so. Likewise, the idea that liberals are somehow skeptical about the power of teachers union or government poverty programs is a little naive.
It is also a little troubling to hear an evangelical to put supporting abortion and non being sufficiently concerned about the poor on the same level.
Incidentally, Barak Obama supports abortion and homosexuality, so I’m not sure what he’s getting it.
And, where does the Bible describe Christians as “half-blind fools”?
The article makes some valid points. The author has some faulty conclusions.
1) Evangelicals, Fundamentalists, and liberal Protestant groups really aren’t concerned with poverty. Taking words out of the equation, there is no evidence for concern for the poor. Very few of these churches even have food pantries, let alone free schools and charitable hospitals.
2) Altruism and Christian love are radically different ideas. Altruism (as expressed say by volunteers) is more generally driven by a desire of pride, i.e. “I’m making a difference.” Perfect Christian love expresses itself by desiring everyone to enjoy the fruits of the Kingdom; it is an attempt to bring to earth the perfect justice we’ll see in heaven.
3) The state cannot bring social justice. Nothing is accomplished by giving a rich man’s labors to a poor man other than making two poor men. The church has consistently taught that a man is entitled to the fruits of his labor. A rich man can have have Christly peace if he gives his fruits to the kingdom. The beatitude is blessed are the poor, not the sloathful. Taxing of the rich so as to give to the poor does not give the rich man peace, but gives him a good reason to hoard that which he has and retire early.
I think it all really comes down to Stuntz overlooking Jimmy’s point (3). Since this fits in with some other philosophical musings I’ve had lately, I’ve written about this a bit more extensively here:
http://crimsoncatholic.blogspot.com/2004/12/liberal-game-in-action.html