Other Common Questions 1

Ad Politics

Section 1: What are your politics?

    This is a question even if it is not explicitly asked, is almost always on the mind of folks in academe. There are reasons for that.

    Contemporary research on the politics of academics seems to indicate there is a strong bias--or strong dislike--for evangelical Christians that correlates with their perceived political alignment--see: 

    There are various cultural reasons for this interest in and dislike for evangelical Christians and from the research it’s because of their perceived political and religious beliefs. One likely reason for the political animus is that Marxist political analysis along with the postmodern critique (here the hermeneutic of suspicion plays a key role) abounds in the academic setting. Both the ubiquitous Marxist analysis and the postmodern critique charge their ideological opponents (evangelicals) with a hidden and often unconscious  agenda--either gaining or maintaining their economic power or gaining or maintaining raw political power.

    That is, what both these cultural critiques hold in common is that the most fundamental thing in culture is a lusting for and grasping for desired objectives and objects--not too much to argue with there. In the Marxist critique it’s all about economics--who owns the means of production, who benefits from it and who is exploited.  In the postmodern critique, it is argued by some, it is all about raw power, who has it, who exploits and who is exploited by it. (For what it’s worth, we remind our friends that this analysis of hidden agendas applies universally, if at all, and if that’s the case, you can’t get very far into any discussion if you assume that we all, including them, are playing “dirty pool.”)

    That in part explains, other than just their curiosity, why academic people want to know where you’re coming from. They’ve been taught and have taught themselves to think in these terms, especially about religious people who are considered obstructionists to their agendas.  

    Now how do you respond to that?

    Honestly, we hope, but tactfully.  Believing as we do that:

  1. Nothing is more fundamental than a Christian analysis of all of life, we still don’t have to disagree with everything their critique says. What we would disagree with for starters would be the supposed pride of place politics enjoys in academe’s zeitgeist--its supposed supremacy as the key to understanding culture and all of life. (More needs to be said about this and is said about this elsewhere.). See an Introduction to Cultural Analysis, see also a Primer on Postmodernism, checkout the series 
  2. We need to do our homework in understanding the culture of academe in every possible way we can. We are dialoguing with a sophisticated group who hold their opinions very strongly and feel morally justified believing what they do...parenthetically see these studies below that purport to give us insight into what they think and believe:

First Wave (late 50s):

Second Wave (1990s-):

Third Wave (2006-):

    The challenge then is to engage skillfully and not just get into an argument. But maybe the main thing to see is whatever one’s political views are or wherever they are alleged to be grounded, from that alone it doesn’t necessarily follow that the gospel is false. That’s at least possibly true for a number of reasons. For example, you can find Christians who represent a fairly wide range of politics and who also claim to understand and hold to the truth of the gospel. So, there is a possibility that the truth of the gospel is independent of one’s political affiliations or one’s construal of what Christianity politically demands of its followers.

    Here’s another way this can be thought of: there have been Christians who believed in the truth of the gospel, but also believed that the sun went around the earth and had specific passages in mind when they formed that view. That latter view is surely false, but does their believing that falsify the gospel? Does their view of the solar system necessarily falsify the truth of the gospel?

    We think not because we believe they were mis-reading the intent of those passages.   That is, references to the sun rising and setting were a figure of speech--a phenomenological way of putting things--not specifically a metaphysical pronouncement on the nature of the solar system. In some ways we can now look at this sort of situation with some sympathy because we know more today about both how to properly interpret the Bible and know more today about the solar system.

    In a similar way, it is possible for Christians to have the truth about the gospel right, but perhaps misunderstand the complexities of what the Bible teaches about political theory and how that might apply today.  Some epistemic humility seems in order regarding that and conceding that doesn’t mean one is giving away the farm.  Perhaps the Bible teaches one theory rather than another, or perhaps any doctrine on politics supposedly generated from a reading of the Bible is underdetermined--there is not enough to definitely say one way or another.  

    Since that can be the case it doesn’t follow our views about politics and a host of other things we believe that may or may not be false necessarily falsify the gospel. The key, then is epistemic humility about all things, but even more regarding the less important things. We can concede Christians have been mistaken before and maybe are mistaken today about some of these things, but that’s not the point. None of that means we are not entitled to our views about whether the gospel itself is true--it may well be or it is likely that we are within our epistemic rights to hold what we do; what we are not entitled to is holding those views about serious but less important things with the same firmness as we do the truth of the gospel.

Finally, we need to season our speech with salt. That takes a lot into account. For instance, if your politics are to the left (as most in academe are), you will not have as much communication problems since it is possible you might agree with many of their political policies. If your views are to the center left or center right you may still be viewed as an obstructionist and certainly you will considered that if your politics are perceived as being to the right. 4) Remember that political conversions are not what we are after, we are still focused on understanding their religious outlook and the justification they offer for their views.  

Section 1a: Why aren’t Christians more supportive of human rights?

    In fact many Christians have been and are supportive of human rights.  Further, they hold that their views about this follow from their belief that all people are created in God’s image and have inherent dignity, conferred upon them by their Creator. This was the theological basis for many Christian abolitionists before and during the Civil War.  Therefore they hold that all persons regardless of ethnicity or religious beliefs theoretically should be treated in a manner that reflects both the value of the individual and the value of the community (who are a “collection” of those who are made in God’s image). Things get complicated after that because the theory isn’t always practiced.

    But believing as we do that God is our Creator and that the ultimate source of value and dignity is found in His nature, believing as we do that morality is grounded in His nature and expressed through His will and commands (be sure not to confuse this with a kind of divine command theory of morality where what makes things right in all cases is just that God commanding it to be so); we thus hold that this forms a sufficient grounding for human rights of all the people.  

    It is not as though the natural law revealed in Nature is not also a sufficient basis for human rights, but Christianity also has the metaphysical resources to explain why natural law exists and the ability of humans to grasp that moral truth. Christian morality is also a “thicker” morality in that it goes beyond the theoretical to many practical explanations and outworking of that moral law.  

    Where there are problems and more conflict is when a secular culture rules out of bounds that “thicker” morality (often on the grounds of separation of church and state) and tries to establish a “thinner” secular morality. While that can be instituted arbitrarily by civil law, such a move is open to some criticisms. One such criticism relates to the moral foundations for civil law, but because of length and we have discussed this elsewhere, we’ll pass on that for now. Another issue that emerges is when one adopts the “thinner” morality there is often difficulty discerning ambiguities in case situations. The lack of clarity as to what human dignity might mean in certain cases can lead to ethicists who hold to the human dignity thesis, to hold opposing views in certain cases. That is problematic.

    For instance, Christians have historically held that homosexual behavior is sinful and therefore not morally permissible. That explanation needs further details and nuance that space will not allow, but this can bring them into conflict with a secular culture who holds that human dignity and civil freedom demands that homosexual behavior not only to be tolerated, but also to be treated as equal to heterosexual behavior in marriage.  

    These sorts of conflicts between traditional Christian morality and civil law can create the impression (at least open it to the criticism) that Christians don’t value human rights, but it would be an exaggeration to think that. There exists even within the Christian community a spectrum of thinking about these sorts of issues. For instance, some Christians are willing to tolerate homosexual behavior including homosexual civil marriages, while others are willing to tolerate homosexual unions (but not homosexual marriages), others are not willing to tolerate any of that. The latter say that because of the a) potential unintended consequences of that sort of toleration, and b)  that toleration of this sort can weaken the moral fiber of the whole community or nation generally, including the value of heterosexual marriage.

    But the thing to see is that Christians historically have been very supportive of human rights, have a basis in reason to think that this is rationally proper and possess a “thicker” morality that helps the community think through what are its implications.

Section 1b: Why do Christians want to teach creationism in public school?

    Simply put, not all Christians want to teach creationism in public schools. For example, there are leading members of the Intelligent Design movement who do not advocate for that. Others do advocate for it.

    Those Christians who do not advocate for teaching it in school cite the separation of Church and State, or that religion should not be taught as science, while others do not feel that the status of the intelligent design (and especially the Creationist movement) has risen to the level where it necessarily should be taught in schools.  

    Some of Christians hold that while they do not advocate the obliged presentation of creationism or intelligent design in public schools, it should be allowed if the teacher approaches the subject briefly and fairly.

    There are those Christians for various reasons think Darwinian evolution is not only wrong it is has produced serious cultural evil, for instance it played a part in the eugenics movement that emerged in the 20th century. The eugenics movement in turn played a significant role in Nazi propaganda that appealed to its intuitions and also played a role in the evils of social Darwinism that emerged from the “superman” conception of its citizens in German culture.

    For that reason and others these kinds of Christians hold that either Creationism or some kind of intelligent design should or could be taught as an alternative to Darwinian evolution and its deleterious affects. 

    There are also some atheists who believe that Darwinian evolution as it is currently construed in materialist terms must be wrong. An example of such a person is the philosopher Thomas Nagel who wrote a book with title: Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False.    There is also the philosopher Dr. Brad Monton at the University of Colorado, Boulder who defended teaching the intelligent design/Darwinian evolution controversy in schools; the book is entitled, Seeking God in Science: An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design. Oxford University Press, 2012.

    Neither philosopher thinks God exists, neither think the current intelligent design arguments are sound (although Nagel seems to think their negative arguments against Darwinism work) but in the case of Brad Monton he holds that intelligent design could be taught in certain ways in public schools.  

    The critical conversational questions to ask and assess are: a) how much antipathy to Creationism and Intelligent Design, which by the way are not the same, does this person have? b) why does the person you are talking with have the antipathy she does? c)  how well acquainted is that person (and you) with the literature on the subject? d) and what are the arguments?

For further resources within the larger site regarding section (d) above, see:  

Section 1c: Why don’t Christians support green politics?

    Evangelical Christians are not politically monolithic. Though smaller than its counterpart, it should be noted that there is a more liberal political and theological wing of evangelical Christians that exists, which does support green politics.

    This wing of evangelical Christians tend to support green politics as they do generally the more leftist political agenda. In large part they do this because they read the Sermon on the Mount as literally applying to what sort of government policies would be ruling justly, and they also tend to take the view of the OT towards usury and see it as also applying to businesses and commerce in the contemporary secular community and not just how Christians should behave in business.

    It is true that the majority of evangelical Christians lean toward a political conservatism that is patriotic, a non laissez faire pro-capitalism (or market oriented), and have a strong tendency to vote and take stands on conservative social issues like gay marriage, abortion, strong military defense budgets, small government and so forth.  

    So it’s not fair to generalize that all evangelicals are one thing or another...they just have tendencies and those tendencies have historical and theological roots.  While either or both may be within their epistemic rights to hold what they do in light of the facts they presently see, if they hold their political views with less strength than their views about the truth of the gospel they can properly engage those non-Christian folks who agree or disagree with them.  How that is done takes a lot of skill.

aconnectionsi@gmail.com © Academic Connections, International