"I don't have a good answer for why this is. maybe it's the widespread terror of dissent and disagreement, maybe it's that every native-born American Christian is conditioned to act as an autonomous PR mouthpiece for the public reputation of the Church, maybe it's that saying the right words really has become more important than understanding and abiding by what those words mean; but I wonder whether complaining about a lack of accountability is really the best angle to take. I have a feeling it might just make people try to make you more accountable."
Interesting insight. I was talking with a friend on campus who is from another faith, and who has some of the same concerns about his church organization that I have about my protestant evangelical one. One of the things that keeps coming up is the nature of institutions. Baptists are raised to see the Catholic church pretty critically, and a big part of that is the huge institution that it has become. But it isn't the "Catholic" part that is the problem, it is the institution, and it seems to me that evangelicals have the very same problem. It is harder to see, because they don't have headquarters that count as a country, but the problems are still there.
And it isn't just the buildings and framework of an institution that are at work here--especially since evangelicals are split between a bunch of denominations and non-denoms. But evangelicals have a history of being on the outside of power. Some didn't want to be in power or participate in politics anyway, and others were simply marginalized because their beliefs were pretty far outside the mainstream of America--and evangelicals often liked that. But now, with an avowed evangelical (though only lip-service) President and numerous powerful representatives in congress, Evangelicals are far from the periphery--they are at the center of power. It is their beliefs on evolution and abortion and school prayer that get first notice now in Washington.
One of the rules of politics is that it is much easier to be the underdog and outsider (look at how Bush continues to portray himself this way--ridiculous as it is) than to be the ruling party. When you are on the outside, you can throw all sorts of stupid shit on the stage and act like you are serious about it. When you get in power, those things start to cause problems. When you are an institution or in power, you lose the fervor of the revolutionary, and become the "man" who has to protect his turf. You stop trying to undermine the system and start defending it. It is the quintessential dilemma of politics, because at that point you find yourself in bed with a whole host of characters that are pretty unseemly. But since you are in power now, you can't very well be too much of a purist--because that will marginalize yourself.
That might explain at least part of what is going on. It still bugs me. Everytime I see Tom Delay on television, or see a conservative evangelical defend him. I know that there are a lot of quality conservatives and quality evangelicals out there--some of them are politicians to boot. Delay isn't one of them, and neither is Bush. Conservative Evangels should reconsider their approach here, because as it stands, they are more interested in power than they are in the very principles that brought them to power.
No comments:
Post a Comment