This post will have three items, but all three items will revolve
around a central topic. What is that topic? I guess that I'll label it
"Keeping the peace, versus rocking the boat."
1. I just finished a book from 1988, entitled Pushing the Faith: Proselytism and Civility in a Pluralistic World.
It was edited by Martin Marty and Frederick E. Greenspahn, and it had a
variety of contributors who talked about proselytism. In my opinion,
Martin Marty's conclusion at the end of the book put the rest of the
book into perspective, or at least it allowed me to look at the rest of
the book through a certain lens. Martin opens his essay by quoting
Jimmy Durante's question of "Why doesn't everybody leave everybody else
the hell alone?" Why should people attempt to convert others to their
faith? Why can't they just leave others alone?
To
proselytize or not to proselytize? That is the question. What I got
out of this book (whether or not it was explicitly stated) is that there
are arguably advantages or disadvantages to both paths. When people
are not proselytizing, perhaps they can live together in peace and
mutual tolerance. But what kind of tolerance would that be? Nancy
Ammerman in her chapter "Fundamentalists Proselytizing Jews: Incivility
in Preparation for the Rapture" makes the insightful point that "One of
the ironies of pluralism and civility is that we pluralists spend most
of our time talking to those who already understand us and agree with
us", and that "We rarely make occasion to say anything of consequence to
those who might differ from our views" (pages 121-122). Ammerman
observes that at least fundamentalist proselytizers are willing to talk
with all kinds of people----"rich or poor, black or white or Hispanic,
Jew or gentile." I would add that proselytizers are also willing to
reach out to the lonely and to offer them a sense of community,
something that may be lacking in a culture in which people simply mind
their own business and let each other be. James Richardson on page 151
talks about a group that was part of the Jesus movement in the 1970's,
and it "offered friendship, a place to sleep, food, and other
necessities to hundreds of young people", along with opportunities to
develop work skills (since the group worked to support itself, as
opposed to asking for money on the streets). Moreover, proselytism can
arguably stir the pot within a stagnant, rather dull culture. Marty on
page 158 states that "One could write on the sociology of the
proselytizers and find in their challenge great stimulus for communities
to define themselves, for new ideas to revitalize stagnant cultures."
At least proselytizers have firm convictions and are eager to make a
difference! They're not like the congregations that Marty talks about
on page 157:
"I think of Yale Professor
Paul Holmer, who toured Lutheran churches. There he heard preachers
decrying efforts to earn salvation, merit heaven, try to win God's
favor. He looked at smug and somnolent congregations and asked, 'Who's
trying?"
You'd think that the book
associates proselytism with such wholesome values as community and zeal,
while it characterizes refraining from proselytism as having a tepid,
milquetoast sort of flavor. But that's not entirely the case, for the
book talks about people who have issues with proselytism, yet they
themselves are committed to community and have a degree of zeal. The
chapter on Protestant attitudes towards proselytism discusses those who
wanted to focus on social action and humanitarian projects rather than
converting others to a specific faith. The chapter on Catholic views
towards proselytism mentions a Catholic idea that Catholics should focus
on relationships in their interactions with non-Christians----in light
of the inter-relational Trinity----rather than trying to get
non-Christians to believe a certain way. And there are times when a
group may feel under siege and thus turn inward rather than pursuing
converts. As the book notes, Judaism got to the point where it focused
on its own community's observance of the Torah instead of trying to
convert Gentiles, and there have been Christian sects that have
emphasized feeding the flock rather than going out into the world.
These religions have zeal and commitment, even if they are not gun-ho on
proselytism. My impression is that proselytism and non-proselytism
have their advantages and their disadvantages, and yet one can not make
broad-sweeping statements that apply to all who engage in or refrain
from proselytism.
2. Conservative Elisabeth Hasselbeck is leaving The View, and she is reportedly planning to be a co-host on the Fox News morning program, Fox and Friends. I read an article yesterday entitled Fox Is Not Your Friend, Elisabeth Hasselbeck. The article talks about how The View
gets a lot of viewers because Elisabeth's conservatism creates friction
on the show: "Between Rosie and Whoopi and Joy and gently condescending
Barbara, Elisabeth is surrounded by potential enemies." If Elisabeth
goes on Fox and Friends, however, she'll be around people who
largely agree with her (and who, according to the author, take their
conservatism into ridiculous, inane directions). The article states: "I
just can't imagine Elisabeth Hasselbeck doing that. Or being good at
it. Her talent, if you can call it that, is being the oppressed one, not
part of the dopey morning affirmation to the choir. She's going to lose
all her potency, again if you can call it that, when everyone around
her agrees with her. Where is she going to draw energy and outrage
from? [M]aybe she's
ready to have everyone nod their heads when she makes a point, but I
can't imagine it's going to be good TV."
I didn't particularly care for the article's insults of the hosts on Fox and Friends, even if Fox and Friends
is not a show that I care to watch. I'm just not a fan of dehumanizing
people by calling them stupid, whether that's done by the left or the
right. But the article is on to something, in my opinion: There is
something that's admirable about a person going into the arena and
allowing his or her beliefs to be challenged, especially when that
person does not have too many people backing him or her up. My brother
is a conservative Republican, and yet even he expressed some admiration
for Bob Beckel, a liberal co-host on one of the Fox News programs. "I
do have to give him one thing," my brother said, "Beckel is going up
against a table full of conservatives!"
Speaking for myself, I'm
not the sort of person who enjoys debating. I used to be, back when I
thought that I had all the answers! Nowadays, I'm not as effective of a
debater because I believe that most issues have shades of grey, plus
I'm not as quick in coming up with snappy comebacks as I used to be.
Moreover, there are many times when I would like to write what I think
and feel without being nit-picked, or challenged just because I'm not in
the same place as somebody else. Still, there are occasions when I
enjoy watching a point-counterpoint debate between the left and the
right.
3. In my posts here, here, and here,
I wrote about Connie Marshner, who was a conservative activist during
the 1980's. I recently watched two C-Span videos of Connie Marshner
from the 1980's. In this video,
dated to December 19, 1984, Connie was interviewed about her thoughts
regarding Ronald Reagan's coming second term as President, and she
offered insights about the importance of family and social issues. In this video, Connie debates pro-choicer Kate Michelman after a 1986 Supreme Court decision regarding a Pennsylvania abortion law. I'm assuming that it's this case.
I
really loved the first video, but I didn't care as much for the second
video. In the first video, Connie Marshner calmly and methodically
explained why preserving the family is so important: because it teaches
kids the values that will be important to them and to society later on
in life. She recognized the importance of a support system in terms of
helping families----and she didn't just talk about relatives helping
out, but also ways that society can assist parents in raising their
children: the government having a tax system that does not discriminate
against marriage or take a large portion of a family's earnings, health
insurance policies for businesses that acknowledge the importance of
looking at the family, and businesses allowing women some flexibility so
that they can spend time with their children at home, while also having
a job (but Connie expressed disagreement with the government mandating
this). I also appreciated her discussion of the importance of lifting
the poor out of poverty, allowing them to have a greater stake in
society. Connie endorsed enterprise zones as a way to provide
employment to people lacking employment opportunities or
experience, and she also expressed support for the earned-income tax
credit (which, nowadays, it seems, a number of conservatives oppose).
Moreover, I enjoyed her politicking, as she described her impressions of
Congressman Richard Armey and the (then) new Senator, Mitch McConnell,
as well as discussed the past challenges of working with the Reagan
Administration, where the Deaver-Baker-Meese trio tended to set the
agenda. Although Connie did the vast majority of the talking during
that interview, I felt that I was watching a conversation, or a
dialogue, if you will. My opinions probably differ from Connie's, in a
number of areas. For example, I think that I can believe in family
values, without embracing a social conservative agenda that stigmatizes
homosexual relationships, opposes schools passing out condoms, and
advocates some acknowledgment of religion by the public schools. I also
would prefer to supplement the social welfare system with things like
enterprise zones, rather than opposing the social welfare system. (I'm
not sure if Connie is completely against welfare, however, or merely
wants to reform it). Still, in watching this interview, I felt that I
was seeing a thoughtful analysis of the issues.
Connie's
debate on C-Span with Kate Michelman, however, was very combative, on
both sides, and I thought that the debate generated more heat than
light. I thought that both sides made fairly decent points. Connie was
excellent in terms of her cerebral analysis of politics and the law.
Michelman was better in terms of emotional arguments, as she described
the challenges of single women who become pregnant and lack a support
system to help them. But, in my opinion, Michelman was not that good of
a debater, at least in that particular debate. There is a part of me
that relishes seeing political combat, as one side scores points against
the other side. But there is also a part of me that would like to see
dialogue. I'm not so much talking about the two sides agreeing with one
another, but rather each side thoughtfully engaging the other side's
concerns and arguments. Of course, there are people who see value in
confrontation and polarization because it wakes people up: in this
debate, Connie said that she was happy that she made a pro-choice caller
angry because that shows that she (Connie) was doing her job! She may
have a point there. And yet, there is a part of me that would like to
see more of what Mike Huckabee mentioned when he was advertising his
radio talk-show program: more conversation, less confrontation.