We need robust religious pluralism, says Notre Dame sociologist Christian Smith, to counter our current climate of liberal whateverism:
There was a time in American culture, only a few generations ago, when religious differences were major. Baptists were not Methodists, and both were definitely not Presbyterians. Catholics were absolutely not Protestant, and Protestants doubted that Catholics were even Christians. Jews and Mormons were whole other species. Non-religious Americans were beyond the pale. And Muslims, Buddhists and Hindus were heathen living in faraway places. The problem with that world, we now see, was the destructive bigotry, misunderstanding, conflict and sometimes hatred that went with it. Let us call that world one of sectarian conflict.
We have come in America today to a very different world, which we might call liberal whateverism. This outlook reacts against sectarian conflict by dramatically discounting the claims of religion. The more aggressive side of this view asserts that religion per se is pernicious and should be eliminated or radically privatized. The more accommodating side says religion is fine as a personal lifestyle commodity, but that religious inclinations are ultimately arbitrary and should not be taken too seriously.
(Via: Jesus Creed)
September 20th, 2011 | 1:37 pm
Maybe it’s a good thing instead of a bad thing. Believers are no longer drinking the Kool-Aid of their leaders who, after all, have more of a vested interest in preserving the distinction of Baptists, Methodists, and whatsists.
Perhaps Americans see their neighbors and friends struggling the same struggles and after some honest conversation, come to realize that the Jesus we all profess is really one God.
Babies are born, people get married, and everybody dies. God remains a mystery. And we have no stake in European self-immolation over religious difference be it the Thirty Years’ War or Ireland or anywhen in between.
So rejoice and be glad instead of sad about whateverism. More than just the liberals have caught it, amen.
September 20th, 2011 | 1:58 pm
Todd has demonstrated his own cluelessness, which seems to be the defining characteristic of “liberal whateverism”: as Christian Smith notes, the attitude of “Liberal Whateverism” goes hand in hand with political and social apathy. It is ironic that many secular liberals celebrate the decline of religion in Europe and America, but moan about political apathy and uninterest: “As long as I can enjoy my pleasures and do what I want, who cares what happens politically or internationally? All I care about is myself.” And forget about the eternal destiny that awaits us! This attitude provides fertile ground for political totalitarianism and individual nihilism. Many young peolpe have become existiential and political ostriches. Hardly a thing to rejoice over. Apparently, Todd is one of those ostriches.
September 20th, 2011 | 2:06 pm
Didn’t we see a kind of “whateverism” from conservatives who were hostile to Michele Bachmann being asked to explain her remark about being submissive to her husband? (And didn’t she give an answer that had nothing to do with the biblical command to wives to be submissive to their husbands?) How dare a reporter ask a religious candidate to explain what a religious remark meant!
Also, there was the issue of her church believing the papacy was the anti-Christ. Why bring up such stuff? Why should there be any problems between Catholics and people who believe the papacy is the anti-Christ?
Genuine pluralism fosters a culture that honors rather than isolates and disparages religious difference. It affirms the right of others to believe and practice their faith, not only in their private lives but also in the public square — while expecting them to allow still others to do the same.
Back in the days when, I presume, we had genuine pluralism, my father’s side of the family (I learned only a few years ago) was aghast that he married a Catholic. I wonder if it would even have happened if he hadn’t moved away from his home town and his relatives to a city hundreds of miles away.
I remember fondly those days in the 1960s where Catholic high schools wouldn’t allow students to bring “non-Catholics” to events like school dances, and when Catholics were expected to get permission to attend a “non-Catholic” church wedding of a friend or relative.
I also remember when my brother and sisters and I felt we had to avoid my father’s copy of the Bible. It was the—shudder!—Revised Standard Version, not the Douay–Rheims Bible.
September 20th, 2011 | 2:27 pm
The article linked to says:
Heraclitis,
You say, “Todd has demonstrated his own cluelessness . . . . Apparently, Todd is one of those ostriches.”
Now, I know that kind of talk is not “liberal whateverism.” But is it genuine pluralism or sectarian conflict? Or is it just personally attacking and insulting a fellow commenter?
September 20th, 2011 | 4:19 pm
“Or is it just personally attacking and insulting a fellow commenter?”
I think it is more this.
Seriously, I find it hard to get excited about a post that laments an aspect of the human condition, attributes it to “people not like us,” and moves to either a blanket or specific condemnation of people or a person.
As a person of faith, I espouse an intentional Christianity. I strive to live it. That I may be a liberal is irrelevant, just as it is irrelevant that many other intentional Christians self-identify as conservatives. My faith is not whateverism, and very few committed religious liberals identify with this caricature.
While I realize Mr Carter has rebuffed this suggestion before, if FT really wants to get at the root of liberals and the truth, they should consider hiring one or two of us to write for them and to give a real perspective. That they don’t want to do that–I get. But I would no more swallow what a conservative says about liberals than I would accept what a New Yorker has to say about the Red Sox or Pats. No doubt there is feeling and passion and anything but whateverism about the topic. I just don’t think we’ll find the truth.
September 20th, 2011 | 5:23 pm
Uhm, Heraclitus was not the first to insult and attack.
Todd Believers are no longer drinking the Kool-Aid of their leaders who, after all, have more of a vested interest in preserving the distinction of Baptists, Methodists, and whatsists.
Never mind the cynical, subtle swipe at their leaders (who are not so much “true believers” as people “vested in preserving the distinction”). No, believers in the past are just “drinking the Kool-Aid of their leaders”, as are (it is implied) believers of the present.
How we got to have Baptists, Methodists, and whatsists in the first place, this logic doesn’t explain. But at least we don’t have to worry about children being murdered in the room — it’s just “whatever”, because God is still a mystery, (many) babies are still born, and everybody dies, perhaps not rising again after all — after all, who cares? Better not to care than to risk another Thirty Years War (out of 2000, never mind the localized nature of the conflict).
September 20th, 2011 | 5:27 pm
The problem with a “babies get born” ideology is that it tends to file off any meaningful differences that can give strength to faith. Not all of difference is political, but doctrinal as well, and the clashing of those differences can do profound things.
Ironically the best example of this is atheism, which has seen explosive growth specifically because it offers group identity and a strong, anti-whateverism: it’s the war between science and superstition.
David:
the bachmann moment was a “gotcha”moment, but could you imagine if she ran with it, and tried to meaningfully explain what the biblical meaning of submission meant? Invoking “whateverism” destroyed what could have been a strong response, and bolsters the point of the article-with a strong pluralism we wont immediately jump on odd religious beliefs to us, but ask them to be explained.
As for what liberals think, it’s not like some of us don’t check out liberal christian blogs as well as FT, or David specifically is shy about his ideas or motivations. I’m not sure what dialogue they’d bring though that’s distinct from secular positions on the same issues.
September 20th, 2011 | 7:16 pm
“Uhm, Heraclitus was not the first to insult and attack.”
AC, it’s not about attacking–in a healthy and vigorous debate, ideas and attitudes should be attacked.
Heraclitus made it personal. On debate team you lose with that tack. It’s like fumbling the football–trying too hard or not paying attention.
I have no problem with people attacking and discussing ideas I bring to a discussion. When it gets directly personal, it’s usually a sign I’ve won the argument–the other side’s tapped out.
I don’t have a problem admitting I don’t think much of unjust authority. Lots of people over the past several decades have gone on to stronger drink: Eastern Europeans, Libyans, Egyptians, Syrians, pro athletes, and even Tea Partiers. When parents and teachers lament religious indifferentism, I pay attention. When its church leaders I wonder if their collection plate is running low.
September 20th, 2011 | 8:11 pm
Heraclitus made it personal.
Ah. So saying that everyone who disagrees with you is “drinking the KoolAid” isn’t personal.
When it gets directly personal, it’s usually a sign I’ve won the argument–the other side’s tapped out.
Keep in mind that “winning an argument” and “being right” are two different things. It is sometimes shameful to win an argument, especially if one’s tactics involve insulting the other side (as you did). It is never shameful to be right — although it is indecent to thump one’s chest about it.
I do notice you addressed only my points on style, rather than on substance. I’ll assume your silence means I win on that score.
;-)
September 20th, 2011 | 10:56 pm
AC, pretty much not. I didn’t think you were making a point at all.
I didn’t say “everyone.” The context of the comment was fairly clear I thought: people who looked to authorities to tell them what to think about their sister and brother Christians.
Given the mixing of religious cultures, especially in the American “melting pot” (aka suburbia) of the past two generations, I’d say that many people don’t experience that in day to day life, Catholics and Protestants aren’t terribly different. Mind you, I think that is a challenge to Catholic identity. But on the whole, it’s a good thing. And as for the identity of Catholics, it would seem we could do a better job on that.
No, I pretty much stand by my comment: lots of people don’t accept what others tell them when their personal experiences reinforce the opposite view.
That you’ve made the discussion more about me than about the topic presented, well, that doesn’t bode well for much of substance behind your ideas. But I’m willing to give it one more listen if you want to address the role of anti-authoritarianism in the mix. Or some other idea not touching on my mother’s footwear.
;)
September 21st, 2011 | 12:41 am
Todd
Since you won’t read between the lines:
As you know, anti-authoritarianism for its own sake is a mark not of adulthood, but of adolescence. Indeed, it can devolve into the sort of savage chant that gleeful rioters spout as they break windows and set fire to stores, or the sort of nonsense one hears from certain confused fringes of the right wing. Spouting “anti-authoritarianism!” and setting up a false dichotomy with a war that was based more on politics than on religious faith is not an argument made in good faith, especially should people’s lives hang in the balance, never mind their souls.
That people of past generations took a strong stand on certain issues when inspired by religion — which, as far as I can tell, both the excerpted passage and the article are about — certainly does not counsel submission to religious authority. Luther’s passionate stand against indulgences was a genuinely anti-authoritarian moment — unless you think that burning a bill of excommunication involves submission to authority — but it led to a stark division that not only has yet to be healed, it contributed to the Thirty Years War (though I personally think that war would have occurred anyway; religion was more an excuse than a motivation).
Would it have been better for Europe to say, “ahh… it’s all the same, let the Pope sell his indulgences, better to take no stand at all?” I don’t think you’d go along with that.
Luther argued only against the sale of a supposed spiritual benefit, while quite a few of the religious issues of today — many of which are argued here — have to do with what makes a human being, whether the protection of human life trumps the freedom to make any choice one wants, whether faith should bind the hands of state authorities when they wage war, and so forth.
Some points of the article that deserve contention, but your assertions don’t have much to do with it, I’m afraid.
Good night!
September 21st, 2011 | 1:18 am
Soooo
Are we supposed to feel just as strongly but not act like it? It seems that Smith thinks that these matters should exist in rhetorical bubbles, only to be taken out when in pleasant debate. These ideas have consequences, right? The have intramural and public ramifications, right? The whole thing sounds like a presupposed secularism in which all non-secular views are given the space they deserve by rights, whoever decides that.
Can anyone else imagine such a place?
(ou/e)utopia ain’t just a river in Egypt, you know.
September 21st, 2011 | 7:12 am
Anonymous Coward,
Christianity would not have survived even for six centuries without an authority to resolve theological disputes.
In the absence of authority, people end up creating their own Christianity.
Donatism was rejected by the second ecumenical council, because it argued that the church should only be filled with saints and not with sinners. And that a breakaway church could be created from a sinful one.
Such a church never came to be, because there will never be a perfect church, because there are no perfect people.
Evangelical pastors sell blessings, the same way priests sold indulgences.
It’s called the prosperity Gospel.
September 21st, 2011 | 8:49 am
AC, regarding, “As you know, anti-authoritarianism for its own sake is a mark not of adulthood, but of adolescence …”
That’s of course what they used to say about the Old Testament prophets. People in power always say that about those they perceive as the barbarians at the gate.
I wouldn’t discount that some people espouse a form of “whateverism,” but it has more to do with human nature in general than it does with it being a liberal or conservative characteristic.
I’m faintly interested in Dr Smith’s book, as I think his observations, though perhaps misdiagnosed, are spot-on. But I wonder why the sanitizing of the situation? A person uses recreational drugs, engages in casual sex … used to be that people called that sin.
That’s not to say I don’t think there are bigger movements afoot in western culture. Some might think of it as social or institutional sin.
I’d be interested in seeing a tighter, more persuasive argument from Dr Smith. Granted, I don’t expect an essay of a few hundred words to convince me to get past a very weak terminology. But you commentators haven’t managed much of that yet, either. It only took you guys till post #2 to get personal.
Have the last word, fellas: you’ve earned it by tweaking the discussion past the gutter. I applaud you for that.
September 21st, 2011 | 9:58 am
@David,
Surely you understand “gotcha” journalism? Bachman somewhat sidestepped the “submission” question but her answer was basically sound. The problem was the context of the question, that “submission” had a single possible meaning and the questioner couldn’t imagine another. The same problem comes with the term “anti-Christ” particularly with the horror movies of the past several decades. Both terms are New Testament biblical. I have no problem with questions about either, but the questioners should first remove their own blinders. Along the same lines, though not biblical, was that to Perry about getting sleep given Texas executions. Perry did better than Bachman with that question. The right does it to the left as well, but none of it enlightens. Its use is so common, I stopped watching candidate debates after the Bush-Gore set in 2000. One of these days, I’ll stop reading the news about who “won” a debate.
@Todd, Give it up. You lost me with your opener.
September 21st, 2011 | 10:04 am
Also, there was the issue of her church believing the papacy was the anti-Christ. Why bring up such stuff? Why should there be any problems between Catholics and people who believe the papacy is the anti-Christ?
Indeed, ‘whateverism’ is probably even more common in American Christian circles than liberal ones. A long while ago, I recall a post by Joe where he discussed how he is probably an official ‘member’ of dozens, maybe hundreds of different churches. He went to different churches the way many people will try different Starbucks.
I recall going to Catholic CCD in my community where we were chastised because some people started going to mass at the hospital (accross the street from the Church is a Catholic Hospital which has its own small chapel with regular mass). Even though there was no question about doctrinal differences, this was clearly viewed as weakning the community around the local church and was frowned upon. You can go to a ‘different Catholic church’ if, say, you were travelling or moved but during normal times you were expected to be a member of your local one.
But this is not how you build a ‘big tent’. To do that you need ‘whateverism’ and that is pretty dominant among most Christian conservatives I know. Yes there’s debate about who should be allowed as a member of the ‘whatever’ club….Mormons are debatable unless Romney wins the GOP nomination, Jews are ironically in…the more orthodox the better!,liberal Christian sects that have SSM, are probably out but once you’re in you’re in. As the bumper sticker says, ‘goto a Church of your Choice on Sunday’.
Dblade
the bachmann moment was a “gotcha”moment, but could you imagine if she ran with it, and tried to meaningfully explain what the biblical meaning of submission meant? Invoking “whateverism” destroyed what could have been a strong response, and bolsters the point of the article-with a strong pluralism we wont immediately jump on odd religious beliefs to us, but ask them to be explained.
It would be a ‘gotcha moment’ but for the fact that it was a perfectly legitimate question. There ARE actual Christians, not just a few kooks, who believe submission is what it sounds like and that includes a husband making career decisions on behalf of his wife even if the wife disagrees (to ‘submit’ is not just to do things you like or agree with but also doing things you wouldn’t otherwise do if you weren’t ‘submitting’). Bachmann has played to this idea with her story about going for a career in tax law not because she wanted it but because her husband thought it would be a good idea. It’s perfectly legitimate to ask, then, where this line would be if she was president. What if her husband wanted a particular policy or decision, does or does not ‘submission’ mean that she would have to yield to him.
Bachmann invoked ‘whateverism’ in her answer, though. She tried to assert that ‘submission’ was just simply a fuzzy type of respect and willingness to listen to the opinions of one’s spouse. Well doesn’t everyone think that’s a great thing? I’m sure even atheists like Christopher Hitchens will listen to his wife’s ideas! This short circuited the discussion because ‘whateverism’ allowed her to paint herself as a victim….why this mean nasty MSM reporter hates her religion, wants to paint her ‘Biblical submission’ as something that’s different from liberal secularism! But you can’t have your cake and eat it too. You can’t be a desert topping and a floor wax…..You can’t run against liberal secularism yet bristle at being asked how you’re beliefs are different from liberal secularism as if that was like asking a Jew if he kills Christian babies so he can drink their blood!
I would suggest Joe drop the “liberal” adjective from his complaint here. “Whateverism” is a tool much more common and useful for the right than for liberals.
September 21st, 2011 | 10:36 am
Boonton, the timing of the question tended to tip more towards gotcha than serious inquiry. If this were a problem, wouldn’t it have surfaced as she was running for her previous offices? Do we also apply this to her tenure in congress? The MSM was scrambling to find things to stick to the Repub frontrunner of the moment, and it’s humorous because the field changes so wildly you wonder if they are suffering from whiplash.
I think though that it’s still liberal, but you are assuming it means poltical liberal. It means liberal religionist, and Republicans can be them as well. The liberal tendency in religion is to file off distinctives and controversy in order to co-exist peacefully with secular society.
September 21st, 2011 | 10:39 am
Surely you understand “gotcha” journalism? Bachman somewhat sidestepped the “submission” question but her answer was basically sound.
Mike Melendez,
I don’t see the question to Bachmann as “gotcha” journalism at all. It was probably a question not even worth asking. She knew it would be asked. She no doubt had carefully formulated and rehearsed a response, perhaps even testing various answers with focus groups. Her reply had absolutely nothing to do with the biblical injunction for wives to be submissive to their husbands. It had nothing to do with the statement she had made about being submissive to her own husband. Candidate debates have little to do with truth. It was more of a “gotcha” answer than it was a “gotcha” question.
September 21st, 2011 | 10:47 am
It seems to me that, even though “whateverism” is a direct result of liberalism, even committed liberal Christians should be extremely troubled by it.
I say that because “whateverism” is almost never relegated to just one subject. The stereotpical liberal Christian has long told himself and others “We can toss out all the stale, old sexual teachings of the Church- and once we do, the grateful idealistic young people will come swarming back to the Church eager to do the IMPORTANT things we stand for… like social justice work.”
In reality, an apathetic young Christian In Name Only is likely to be as bored by social justice sermons as by sexual sermons. Once a kid has adopted the attitude that “You know, you do your thing, I do my thing, and in the end, we all go to Heaven or something,” he’s NOT going to be receptive to liberal clergy asking him to abandon materialism or live a simpler lifestyle or devote his time to helping the less fortunate.
People like David Nickol have created a monster. They successfully convinced young Christians that the old rules don’t matter… but what the young people heard was “NOTHING really matters.”
September 21st, 2011 | 11:17 am
Dblade
Boonton, the timing of the question tended to tip more towards gotcha than serious inquiry. If this were a problem, wouldn’t it have surfaced as she was running for her previous offices?
The timing of the question? When should the question be asked? 5 minutes before she takes the oath of office? As for it being a problem, maybe her husband just has little or no interest in her House votes. Maybe in fact he has directed some of her votes citing that she should be ‘submitting’ to him and she just hasn’t bothered to tell us that. More importantly it’s fair to ask what exactly his ‘Biblical submission’ means and how does it get applied if, as President, her husband wants one particular policy but she wants another. She has already said in terms of her choosing to become a tax lawyer, it means yielding to your husband’s view. Does that mean if he suddenly wants her to quite a year or two into her term she will? Can she under ‘Biblical submission’ say no?
Her answer was a combination of ‘gotcha’ (look at this mean liberal MSM asking me these nasty questions!) and ‘whatever’ (‘submission’ just means something like mutual respect or we listen to each other’s ideas….but there are actual Christians who DO NOT think that, who think it means more what it sounds like and while mutual respect is supposed to be there, submission means one person yields to the other person’s decisions).
The MSM was scrambling to find things to stick to the Repub frontrunner of the moment, and it’s humorous because the field changes so wildly you wonder if they are suffering from whiplash.
Yea yea that horrible MSM. But I recall not too many years ago the same thing being done with Bill Clinton when he said his wife would be like a co-President. Yes the MSM likes a juicy story but we aren’t electing a Fox News Anchor to high office, we are electing a candidate and its important to get real answers to these questions rather than dither around fretting that some imaginary protocol wasn’t followed in asking ‘sensitive’ questions.
September 21st, 2011 | 4:38 pm
Boonton,
“What if her husband wanted a particular policy or decision, does or does not ‘submission’ mean that she would have to yield to him.”
I think you’re the kook here. Submission does not mean “do as I say”
Sub-mission means to be under mission.
What is a husband’s mission?
To love his love as Christ loved the Christ.
You can’t submit to a mission, if it is not carried out.
September 21st, 2011 | 4:39 pm
I meant as Christ loved the church.
September 21st, 2011 | 7:24 pm
Sub-mission means to be under mission.
savvy,
Let’s see the three passages in context:
Do you really believe you have done justice to the New Testament concept of wives being submissive to their husbands? Notice the following: “They submitted themselves to their own husbands, like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her lord.” Don’t we have a little more going on here than your concept of “sub-mission”?
Here’s an interesting passage from the old online Catholic Encyclopedia:
Here’s another:
I don’t think, by the way, that these passages envision a woman as the leader of a country or the commander-in-chief of an army. But let’s put that aside. It might arguably be said that a woman submits to her husband regarding family matters only, and that she can act freely regarding her job or other non-family matters. I think that is the interpretation many conservative Christians consider appropriate. In that case, a husband would not be able to dictate policy decisions. But it seems to me it would still be open to a husband to say, “This business of being president is causing you to neglect your responsibilities to your family. You must resign.”
September 21st, 2011 | 10:18 pm
savvy
Sub-mission means to be under mission.
What is a husband’s mission?
To love his love as Christ loved the Christ.
You can’t submit to a mission, if it is not carried out.
Sounds good, doesn’t really fit anything though. She cited going to school to become a tax lawyer as an example of submission. If becoming a tax lawyer is part of a mission to love Christ then just about anything and everything her husband may happen to want can be lumped into a broad ‘mission to love Christ’.
Also if this is what submission means then why the emphasis on the wife submitting to the husband? If they both are on a mission to love Christ then wouldn’t one say they are both ‘submitting to Christ’? Or does this mean that the husband is like the commanding officer on a military mission. They both share the same objective but in theological matters he outranks her so she submits to his orders (but then how is becoming a tax lawyer a theological question?)
But I think this is a good example of ‘whateverism’. What does submission mean? Well it means whatever isn’t offensive to liberal secularism….except bashing liberal secularism. You and Bachmann would join hands in bashing liberal secularism yet there’s no end to the convoluted lengths you’ll take language too in order to try to convince us that non-liberal secularists are just like liberal secularists. Hence “A should submit to B” morphs into “A and B mutually respect each other” or “A and B share a common mission”.
Yet the common sense meaning of submission in everyday language does not mean this. “A submits to B” in normal language sets up a clear hierarchy, a clear chain of command where B’s decisions trump A’s regardless of what A feels about the merits. Saying that B should respect A, that B has duties and obligations to A, well that’s all nice but it misses the point. In the military a commanding officer has duties to the men under him, has to respect those under his command. That doesn’t mean direct orders are some type of ‘mutual respect’ lovefest where everyone shares their feelings.
Now its fine if you say your faith has a specialized and nuanced understanding of submission. Then say that and take the few minutes to explain it. Certainly newcomers to her faith had to be instructed as to this specialized meaning of submission least converts misunderstand the meaning to mean they have the freedom to reign over their wives as tyrants.
David
I don’t think, by the way, that these passages envision a woman as the leader of a country or the commander-in-chief of an army. But let’s put that aside. It might arguably be said that a woman submits to her husband regarding family matters only, and that she can act freely regarding her job or other non-family matters. I think that is the interpretation many conservative Christians consider appropriate. In that case, a husband would not be able to dictate policy decisions….
There were Queens in the Biblical era so the concept of a woman ruling a country probably wasn’t entirely foreign. I’m not sure, though, if married Queens ever ruled in the way that England has a Queen who is married but the crown remains with the Queen and not her husband.
More to the point, its interesting there’s a lot of ‘offense’ being taken to the implied question of whether submission means her husband would be able to dictate policy decisions but no actual answering of the question directly. All that need be said is “no submission would not mean her husband could direct policy”. Instead that is being avoided while a fake debate is manufactured over what protocol should be applied in asking the question.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact