David Brooks, author of Bobos in Paradise and On Paradise Drive, recently wrote a column in the NY Times seeking to introduce John Stott to his readers and offering him as a better representative of evangelicalism than Jerry Falwell. If you want to avoid the registration thing at the NY Times, you can read the article in the Houston Chronicle here. Brooks begins to introduce Stott with these words:
Tim Russert is a great journalist, but he made a mistake last weekend. He included Jerry Falwell and Al Sharpton in a discussion on religion and public life.
Inviting these two bozos onto Meet the Press to discuss that issue is like inviting Britney Spears and Larry Flynt to discuss D.H. Lawrence. Naturally, they got into a demeaning food fight that would have lowered the intellectual discourse of your average nursery school.
This is why so many people are so misinformed about evangelical Christians. There is a world of difference between real-life people of faith and the made-for-TV, Elmer Gantry-style blowhards who are selected to represent them. Falwell and Pat Robertson are held up as spokesmen for evangelicals, which is ridiculous. Meanwhile people like John Stott, who are actually important, get ignored.
It could be that you have never heard of John Stott. I don't blame you . . .
Yet, as Michael Cromartie of the Ethics and Public Policy Center notes, if evangelicals could elect a pope, Stott is the person they would likely choose.
Hmm . . . I'm not one to argue with Michael Cromartie, but "Pope John I," I don't think so. And, by the way Mr. Brooks, how do you really feel about Jerry Falwell and Al Sharpton? You're a little unclear here.
All kidding aside I do like David Brooks alot and although I wouldn't have picked John Stott as a leading representative of evangelicalism, I do think that Brooks is on the right track - trying to show that there are other, better representatives of evangelicalism out there besides the ones you normally see on TV.
Interestingly, some of the more liberal bloggers see something nefarious in Brooks' recommendation of Stott.
After going on at some length to convince us that this John Stott is a better representative of religious conservatism than is Jerry Falwell, and that Stott is a calm, erudite, intellectual fellow, Brooks winds up conceding that on some issues Stott "will not compromise." Indeed, he has "a backbone of steel." Among other uncompromising views, Stott "does not accept homosexuality as a legitimate lifestyle."
But so there you have it. According to Brooks, not everyone on the religious right is a mad dog, nutty, hate-filled, gay basher. Some peopel are, like Stott, calm, cool, collected, intellectual, self-reflective, gay bashers.
Ezra Klein at Pandagon.net says:
Great point by Matthew Yglesias on the nonsense that is Brooks' lastest column on John Stott. But in simply noting that nice gay-bashers are no worse than mean gay-bashers (i.e, Falwell, Robertson), I think Matt misses what Brooks is trying to do. In the same way that Bush is as conservative as Gingrich but his more moderate, folksy-demeanor makes him a tougher target to villify, Stott is a much more effective ambassador of evangelical bigotry than Falwell. By demanding that the media give Stott more play and Falwell less, Brooks is attempting to strengthen the evangelical movement by giving it a moderate facade that, while changing the decor, does nothing to smooth out the discriminatory policies. He's not on a selfless mission as blue state ambassador, trying to help us understand that evangelicals aren't Sunday show buffoons. He's a partisan who recognizes a weakness in his side and is using the lessons of the Republican party's last decade (Bush is a better emissary than Gingrich) to plug the hole.
And, Andrew Sullivan says:
How influential, exactly, is John Stott on the political agenda of America's evangelicals? Not too much, I'd say. By picking a theologian in London, David Brooks strains somewhat to exculpate his conservative allies from the taint of intolerance.
I'm having a hard time seeing what Andrew, Ezra and Matt find so offensive about Brooks' article. In reading some of the more leftist blogs it seems that they believe that anyone who is a conservative or a Christian is, by default, an intolerant bigot, and has, by default, some kind of nefarious political agenda.
I think these folks think that Brooks is trying to slide nice guy Stott in under the radar. They seem to think that Stott, Brooks, and Falwell all share a similar political agenda, and Brooks is searching for a new representative of the religious right who can succeed where Falwell has failed.
What they all miss is that the differene between Stott and Falwell is that Stott doesn't have a politicized faith, whereas Falwell does. The big issue here is the gay marriage issue. Stott and Falwell are both against gay marriage. Falwell has chosen to fight this on TV and in the political arena. But Stott has not. In fact, as Jeremy Pierce points out, Stott has been pretty a-political in his ministry and his church has been very welcoming of those with "alternative lifestyles."
Even though Stott apparently hasn't done anything threatening toward those who are gay or support gay marriage, the fact that he has views which are opposed to these things is threatening.
This goes deeper than merely asking "who speaks for evangelicals?" which is what Brooks was getting at. Brooks was simply saying that he would rather see someone like Stott speaking for evangelicals than Falwell. I can agree with that. Stott is not necessarily the first one I would have chosen as a spokesman for evangelicalism, but he's a good one, and I am longing for the day when evangelicals will no longer be seen through the Falwell grid.
What is of note here is that, to my knowledge, Stott has never spoken out against gay marriage in a political setting. Maybe he has, but I'm not aware of it. He has spoken of his positions within his own communion and to fellow evangelicals, but has not gone on TV a la Falwell, and has not agitated for a political candidate or platform. Of course he wouldn't do this, since he is in England and probably doesn't care about American politics the way we do. But, to my knowledge, he hasn't agitated for a political response even in England. He has only spoken of what concerns his church.
So, Andrew, Matt, Ezra and others seem to think that, even if you don't use politics to advance your views, the very fact that you have views against gay marriage makes you a menace to society. Would Cal Thomas and Ed Dobson, who specifically repudiated the tactics of the religious right in their book Blinded by Might, still be considered such a menace to society?
One of the things that Andrew, Matt, and Ezra have in common with Jerry Falwell and others is what Jacques Ellul calls the political illusion. This is a worldview which sees every issue through a political lens and which assumes that all of the most important questions facing society have political solutions. I realize they will all disagree with me on this and would still have qualms even if they did acknowledge that not all of society's questions have political solutions. We're so deep into our politicized society now that even if they did recognize the truth of the political illusion, neither side wants to be the first one to blink.
Although Stott apparently has no intentions of politicizing his faith, I fear that Brooks may have pulled him into a political debate with this article. Stott's statements on gay marriage reflected a spiritual and ecclesiastical agenda, not a political agenda. But in a world that lives under the political illusion, these things will now be given a political spin that I doubt Stott would intend.
Recent Comments