New Book Review at RPKR

I have just posted a review of David Bebbington's book, Victorian Religious Revivals (Oxford, 2012), at Rom Phra Khun Reviews (here).  Although a history of nineteenth-century revivalism in the English-speaking world, the author's description of that revivalism is relevant to the life of the church today.

Love Thy Theological Enemies

In the third chapter of his book, Victorian Religious Revivals (Oxford, 2012), author David Bebbington describes and analyzes an 1841 evangelical revival that took place in Washington-on-the-Brazos, Texas.  In his analysis of the event, Bebbington describes four groups who posed threats to the revival.  They were the denizens of frontier Texas' rough, almost crude local culture, freethinkers, and two other groups of evangelicals—anti-missionary Baptists and rationalist Campbellites.  The first two groups are hardly surprising.  The last two are.  The revival itself was promoted by moderate, revivalistic Baptists supported by Methodists.  The anti-missionary Baptists did not hold with such things as revivals because there is no record of them in the Bible.  The Campbellites didn't like the revivalistic emphasis on emotion and experience.

From Bebbington's commentary, it is evident that the revival itself found at least part of its identity in this opposition by non-religious and other religious elements.  What it was against was important.  It was against the hard-edges of frontier society, anti-religious thinking, and two other forms of the faith.  One form didn't allow for active revivalism.  The other form didn't value religious experience as being key to one's salvation.

It is not a new thought, but perhaps we don't think often enough about how important our theological "enemies" are to us in the formation of our own identity.  This is certainly true for those of us who embrace the label of "progressive Christianity."  Conservative evangelicals, especially of the literalist persuasion, as well as the so-called new atheists are both important to our own identity.  It is important to us that we are not like them in certain specific ways.  We are not biblical or scientific literalists.  We reject their rigid dualisms.

In this context, Jesus' injunction to "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you" (Matthew 5:44) makes a whole lot of sense.  We take our identity from our theological enemies.  In what they are, we butt up against the boundaries of our own self-understanding.  We need them to be "them," and we need them to be "not-us."  It is worth considering that "when the Kingdom comes" they will be in it too.  The difference between then and now is that then we will be able to pray humble, sincere prayers for "them" and actually love them for what they are—understanding that what they are is important to us.  Amen.

Revivalism & the Way We Elect Presidents

2008 National Democratic Convention

In a posting replete with partisan rancor, entitled, "With 'hope and change,' Obama misled America," the chair of the National Republican Committee observes that presidential candidate Obama fooled the electorate into thinking that he is a moderate when in fact he is a flaming liberal. In the process, he has failed to keep his promises and has turned into an ugly partisan politician. Talk about the pot complaining about the soot on the kettle! Supporters of the president have another set of talking points in defense of the president, and most of the time it is impossible to tell that Republican and Democratic partisans are even talking about the same man.

That being said, there is apparently a measurable decline in enthusiasm for President Obama, which is hardly surprising given the revivalistic style of electioneering expected of all presidential candidates. The only viable path to election is to create an unrealistic, emotion-charged atmosphere of enthusiasm promising a level of change no president can actually achieve in office. Once elected, reality sets in, and it is a battle-scarred incumbent who must come back to seek reelection. President Obama, in fact, has kept many of his promises including winding down the Iraq War. In other cases, circumstances have frustrated his attempts to keep promises, some of which proved unrealistic to begin with. If we step away from the atmosphere of hateful political rhetoric of our day, we have seen him make mistakes at points, do exactly the right thing at others, and grow into the office. The same could be said for both Bush presidencies and for most others.  The thing is that we can disagree with a president's policies without demonizing the president and engaging in the politics of polarization in the process.

What has happened is that we have appropriated the American revivalistic tradition, grounded in religious zeal and fervor, for the conduct national political campaigns. Where nineteenth-century revivalists appealed to the hearts of their congregations while excoriating the devil, politicians now appeal to the emotions of their followers while demonizing their opponents. Whatever its uses religiously, revivalism is not a healthy model for deciding who should be president, and it is bound to lead to disappointment and a disillusioned electorate.  It is also one of the sources of the poisonous political environment we are struggling with today by which candidates cannot concede the goodness of their opponents or their own limitations.  They instead must play this game in which one side is virtuous and the other evil.  It is not a coincidence that some of those who overtly draw on religion as their motive power as politicians are also among the most able demonizers of their opponents, witness former candidates Santorum and Bachmann and almost candidate Palin.

It's been said before and will be said again: there has to be a better way.