More on Theocracy

I know, I wasn't going to post today, but the alternative is taxes, which I always put off until the last minute, but I'm working all weekend, so I have to do them now. Besides, it's coming down rain mixed with snow right now, so I certainly don't want to be outside. At any rate. . . .

Two excellent posts by the admirable Sara Robinson at Orcinus. The first is her contribution to the Blog Against Theocracy, and it does have some encouraging notes:

And, most importantly, while these kids are out to save the world, most of them have absolutely no interest in ruling it. There's a lot more to say about the Emerging Church, but perhaps the most important point is that it's hard and deliberate turn away from the feel-good homogeneity of the suburban megachurches; and a conscious step back from the right-wing evangelical juggernaut of the past 30 years.

Of course, there's bad news, too. As we've often said here, American culture is brittle now. One good shock to the system, and there's no telling what authoritarian horrors could be unleashed. But while those are valid and serious worries, they're still in the realm of what could happen. What is happening is an ebbing tide, with signs that the theocratic threat to our culture is, finally, in slow retreat.

I have to agree with one point here: Given the horrors demonstrated in world history when religions and governments collaborate, I'm very sympathetic to the idea of saving the world, but not ruling it. I'm not so sanguine about the theocratic threat being in retreat: the likes of Dobson, Wildmon, Robertson, Falwell land their fellow travelers don't give up. They can't -- they're right, and the rest of us just don't see it, so they have to keep plugging away.

Her second post discusses her semester as a student at the newly notorious Regent University, and again is hopeful. One point that's critically important, and one that, when I can get past the outrage, I try to adhere to:

At the same time, we do ourselves, our readers, and the institutions themselves a great disservice if we allow ourselves to take everything we hear and see at face value, or interpret it through our own filters without really listening to what's being said. Because, in my experience, what's being said by the official spokespeople doesn't always square what's going on in the faculty lounges, libraries, coffeehouses, and classrooms.

It's so very tempting to stereotype and demonize. After all, the religious right has done it to us for years. But accuracy and fairness -- the only two true allegiances of any journalist -- demand that we take the time to take off our own ideological filters, wander into their communities, stay awhile, and commit to listening to them on their own terms. When it comes to the emerging evangelical elite at places like Regent, we will often have our prejudices more then confirmed. But we may also be rewarded with more friends and allies than we might have imagined.

The problem here is that Robinson is, I think -- well , not exactly conflating the two strands of evangelicalism, but blurring the lines a bit. As we can readily see, what I think I can safely call the "religious arm" of modern evangelicalism is not unified. Human beings are a fractious lot, and I don't see evangelical Christians as being any different from the rest of us. (There's the old joke about Jews and political parties that I think can be extended to any group, or humanity in general, for that matter.) We've already seen some evidence of this in the new calls from a major evangelical organization (and I'm sorry, but I'm having a terrible time with names lately, particularly official names for organizations) for a focus on poverty, war, and the environment, met by criticism from the Dobson Gang. Robinson's observations on the new generation and its focus illustrates this very well.

The "political arm," on the other hand, does march in lockstep, does coordinate its activities, and does, as far as I'm concerned, represent a real threat to our society. They're not all dead yet, and given the influence they've had not only on the Bush administration but on our public discourse (and I'm taking this in the broadest sense -- look what's happened to science education in this country), I don't see that threat ending any time soon. (The consequence of this "style," if I can call it that, are even evident in the efforts of the PC left to "sanitize" literature and the arts lest someone be offended. Action/reaction, I think, in a very real sense, not only in the make-up of those who might be offended [and the Christianists play that card for all it's worth], but the very idea that the cultural heritage has to be doctored to fit modern sensibilities, which to me is anathema. Point 1: if you feel impelled to gut your history, what you've learned from it is exactly nothing. Point 2: the extremes meet in Neverneverland. They really have the same agenda.)

So, while there may be hope for the future, we've got to get through the present, first.