Okay, I'm game for a little tennis. Chris Marlin-Warfield responds to my post responding to his post on the curiously low profile of the religious Left.
Chris is not as convinced as I am that the media hide our light under a bushel. After all, he points out, it's not as though people aren't exposed to non-crazy-right-wing religion in their local settings, and if you ask most religious people, they even hold mostly non-insane political beliefs. So why don't people realize that there is such a thing as religion not subservient to the GOP?
Two reasons come to mind. One is purely mechanical: with the retrenchment of the newspaper business, more and more local outlets depend on wire services for content. This leads to a curious situation where the subject of faith and politics is covered almost exclusively in the political part of the paper, with local coverage reserved for pancake breakfasts and community do-gooding. So the national media have a disproportionate influence in how the conversation goes. And as we know, the national media discourse is pretty much broken.
The other reason is more psychological, and stems in part (but only in part) from the dynamic outlined above. That churches, synagogues, temples, etc., participate in food pantries, ecological advocacy, restorative justice programs, and whatnot is indeed a not-conservative agenda when measured against the right wing obsession with abortion and homosexuality. But for the most part, it bounces off many people as being not particularly political, but just what churches do. So, give away food or collect donations for AIDS relief in Africa: that's religion. Issue bellicose statements in defense of a particular vision of family values: that's politics.
The only exception for this for centrist or liberal churches would be marching against the war, but nobody pays attention to anti-war protesters anyway.
Chris concludes with the thought that
What I want to suggest is not that we on the religious left somehow need to build our own media empires, though utilizing alternative media is good, nor that we should concentrate on delivering votes as Pastor Dan suggests in the first comment on his post. What I think we should do, and what I will begin discussing next week, is build the educational infrastructure necessary to successfully produce political theologies on the left in a democratic fashion and work to alter the sort of conversation that appears on the left when religion is discussed.
I actually am not convinced of the wisdom of becoming a partisan GOTV movement, either. That's Fred Clarkson's position, and he's welcome to it. But given the brass knuckles approach to politics espoused by the Religious Right, a hard-edged partisanship might be what it takes to raise a corresponding profile on the left.
Come to think of it, my most recent position is that we don't need to change the "conversation that appears on the left when religion is discussed" so much as we need to drag the religious conversation leftward. That is, I don't see progressive hostility to or misunderstanding of faith as nearly the problem that having a religious discourse with Jim Wallis as its left-most pole is.
That's by no means a slam at Wallis, only to say that he's really a centrist, even a bit right of center on some issues. So if we want to have a vibrant conversation around religion and progressive ideas, we need to engage actual, you know, progressives.
Perhaps that's what Chris means above, and I'm just misunderstanding him. In any case, I look forward to hearing more from him on the subject. Your serve!