Over at Ingalls' Inklings, Josh takes aim at a conference of the Network of Spiritual Progressives.
It's a post that hits the ball out of the park. Unfortunately, he knocked it foul. The main reason for this is he comes at it from the wrong perspective, and in so doing misses the raisson d'etre of the NSP.
In the Fall 2002 issue of "The Public Interest", Professors Louis Bolce and Gerald De Maio published an article entitled "Our Secularist Democratic Party". This article laid out how secularists had become the dominant force in Democratic politics over the past 30-40 years. This led to large numbers of religious people leaving the Democrat Party for the Republican Party, causing what has been termed the Democrats' "religion problem". It is this problem that the Network of Spiritual Progressives (NSP) is looking to solve. Ultimately, the vagueness of the term "believer" is not a problem because the distinction the NSP is not so much concerned with religious consistency as with creating a broad public understanding that Progressivism is not equivalent to radical secularism. In other words, being religious (whether you're Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Zoroastrian, whatever) is not inconsistent with being a progressive.
Fundamentally, the NSP is a political organization (though it is unfair to say that its members place their faith in politics), and it is thus primarily concerned with ends. Furthermore, it is a coalition, so people's reasons for espousing the ends of the organization will not be consistent across individuals within the organization. The mebers of the NSP may have come from different places, but they are looking to get to the same place. That is enough to establish a working coalition. In this case, the NSP wants to establish a "Religious Left" to stand against the "Religious Right", and this is where they go wrong. In order to be a viable political faction, as opposed to mere window dressing, the NSP needs to establish itself as a reasonable alternative to the secular left. To achieve this, they must demonstrate the ability to influence the political direction of the left, particualrly on such issues as abortion and homosexual "marriage". Failing to do this, it seems to me inevitable that they will be seen as little more than an Amen Corner for the secular left, not a viable alternative to the Religious Right, so called.
Ironically enough, Josh also commits the same offense of vagueness for which he excoriates the NSP when he says that "Progress by definition implies deviation from the status quo." Progress does not imply a deviation from the status quo, it necessitates it. What's more, to progress is to move forward toward a certain objective. Progressivism has always sought movement toward a utopian state, largely defined in terms of material well-being for the masses, especially the lower classes and has viewed the state as the engine of progress toward this. Does this objective lead to "a fuller embodiment of Christian values and truths* in the world"? Does it contradict Christian values and truths? Ultimately, these questions cannot be settled without evaluating the means advocated and their consequences for all affected by them, something Josh refuses to do.
Also, I think Josh reads too much into "the pervasive use of 'we,' our,' and 'I.' The quotes used by the author in the article represent the judgments of the reporter and editor as to what was important to the story. It may be that this was a correct assesment, but it may also be that the reporter missed the point or was distorted what happened in seeking to create the impression of division.
*I would also caution Josh about appending adjectives to the word truth. Truth is truth is truth. There is no such thing as a uniquely Christian truth, Muslim truth, Wiccan truth, or atheist truth. There are things beliefs held as true by these different groups, but they are either true or false. They aren't true for one group and false for another. This is the religious subjectivism against which he has warned.
No comments:
Post a Comment