I noticed that David French on National Review has mastered the sepulchral tone of imminent doom to a fine degree as he laments the possibility that his particular sect of Christianity – which he conveniently simply labels Christianity – finds one of its tenets, that concerning the homosexual marriage, along with LGBTQ rights, under attack:
Again, this is basic Christianity. Moreover, it’s a moral statement. It declares no position on matters of constitutional law, civil rights, or civil liberties. It does not in any way urge any individual or the government to mistreat any LGBTQ person. To the contrary, it repeatedly declares God’s love and God’s saving grace.
The backlash was of course immediate, with multiple liberal Evangelicals deriding the statement as cruel or mean. In their theology, God’s word is subject to an overriding cultural and political test. One can reject even His clearest commands if those commands are “mean” or “intolerant.” And what’s “mean” or “intolerant” is — oddly enough — defined almost entirely by secular social revolutionaries. …
Yes, sin does create shame and broken hearts. Its cure isn’t endorsement but rather repentance. But then there was this, from Nashville’s mayor, Megan Barry:
The
@CBMWorg‘s so-called “Nashville Statement” is poorly named and does not represent the inclusive values of the city & people of NashvilleThis statement is in many ways far more ominous than anything that comes from the liberal Evangelical world. The liberal Evangelical argument is one reason that the Nashville Statement was necessary. The authors and signatories expected pushback. Barry’s statement, however, is different. It’s not separation of church and state, it’s a declaration of state against church.
I must say that part way through, I began wondering how the generation following those who implemented the Salem Witch Trials felt about the abandonment and condemnation of the killing of witches[1]. Would there have been as an atmosphere of dejection and disappointment because Christianity was changing, that one of the central tenets of the Christian experience had been rejected by a large part of the populace, and thus the country was doomed?
I don’t know, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the answer is yes. After all, you always need someone or some group to blame for the ills that are otherwise difficult to explain.
So far as I can make out, David is not concerned about accuracy or having an honest argument. If he was, he wouldn’t confuse civil marriage with religious marriage. He wouldn’t confuse the opinions of a politician as a person with an official policy – particularly in a country in which government is not permitted to make laws with respect to religion. He would admit that change comes to all human institutions.
He wouldn’t try to portray the dominant religion of the United States as being under attack.
No, David is trying to rile up the Evangelical base by playing the victimhood card. You may remember Adrian Chen mentioning it being played in the 1960s, when a memo from the labor unions to the Kennedy Administration suggested using the Fairness Doctrine to suppress right wing viewpoints was leaked to the press. Well, this is how it’s played today – ignore the facts on the ground, the context, and stir up the fears of the readers. See, fear is one of the finest bonding agents known today – far better than Gorilla Glue or Superglue, because it deactivates the reasoning facility in favor of the fight or flight reaction[2], and people in the throes of that reaction are a lot easier to mold.
And this is where my disappointment in Mr. French really comes popping to the fore – because in this missive, dedicated to coaxing his reader into the abandonment of reason, he displays it in himself. He speaks of signing the Nashville Statement:
WE AFFIRM that it is sinful to approve of homosexual immorality or transgenderism and that such approval constitutes an essential departure from Christian faithfulness and witness.
WE DENY that the approval of homosexual immorality or transgenderism is a matter of moral indifference about which otherwise faithful Christians should agree to disagree.
This is the standard Evangelical fundamentalist cant, as I understand it – and it tells the story. It tells us that rather than consider the issues at hand, applying his mental faculties, and coming up with a reasoned judgment, he’s simply gone off and read the Bible. He’s taking a famously contradictory book, extracted some assertions, and decided to sign up for them.
This may take some gumption. It may take even a little leadership.
But, really, it doesn’t take intellect. Oh, maybe he agonized over signing the pledge, or was hesitant to become an evangelical Christian, but in the end we’re talking about giving up a reasoned approach to life in favor of just trying to interpret what a sometimes obtuse book, written a long time ago, has to say. And then taking it for God’s word. That’s where the real cessation of reasoning comes in.
In a sense, there’s an aesthetic principle at work here, and David plies it well, whether or not he’s conscious of it. By demonstrating that he’s willing to give up his reasoning capacity, he implicitly encourages his audience to do the same. It creates a bond between him and his audience. And then the manipulation can begin. In this case, Be fearful of non-conservative politicians – they’re out to getcha! The writer demonstrates not-thinking, and so the audience should not-think. This may explain why I’m so impressed by the sepulchral tone.
But do you know what I see as the saddest thing of all? The Bible has a fabulous rule that he could have instead cited[3]. It’s called the Golden Rule. Simply treat people how you’d want to be treated. It covers so much ground and doesn’t get you involved in other people’s love life, while inviting you to love them so long as they love you. What’s not to like about that?
Even an agnostic like myself can like that.
1My apologies to any historian who is shaking their head at my shaky grasp of Christian history as to when killing witches was abandoned.
2“Fight or flight” seems to be popping up everywhere for me lately. I wonder how my cortisol levels are doing…
3If the Bible didn’t have some redeeming qualities, it wouldn’t have survived this long. Simply evolutionary theory.
