Bridging the Gap? Or creating alibis?

The Washington Post ran this story on page A-1 Wednesday: Religious Right, Left Meet in Middle: Clergy Aim to Show That Faith Unifies by Alan Cooperman Washington Post 06/15/05. Religious stories don't normally make it to the front page.

It starts with a report about what starts off sounding like friendly cooperation between the Rev. Bob Schenck, "an evangelical Christian and a leader of the religious right," and Reform Jewish Rabbi David Saperstein, "a leader of the religious left." Schenck plans to start telling fundamentalist audiences that sexual orientation is not a choice. Saperstein is promoting a campaign to reduce the number of abortions.

But by the fifth paragraph, we see this:

Schenck and Saperstein disclosed their plans in separate interviews. They are not working together. The minister remains a die-hard opponent of same-sex marriage; the rabbi staunchly supports a woman's constitutional right to choose an abortion. But both are trying to find common ground between liberals and conservatives on moral issues -- and they are not alone. [my emphasis]

How is this a story about cooperation between the Christian Right and "the religious left" if their main examples can't even do a joint interview? And the article even stipulates that they "are not working together."

Now, I'm very much in favor of constructive ecumenical efforts, in which different faiths and denominations seek to learn more about each other or cooperate on common concerns. But not all cooperation is equal. Or whorthwhile. In the United Nations, our Protestant President has formed an ecumenical common front with Muslim nations and the Vatican to oppose measures to promote birth control and to protect women's rights.


The article makes much of Christian Right declarations of sympathy for the poor. But talk is cheap. When Christian Right leaders are ready to start challenging the prejudices of their white conservative base supporters by demanding removal of the draconian and impractical work requirements of the 1990's welfare reform, or by lobbying for vastly expanded federal job-training programs, then I'll start to wonder if they can't get beyond their narrow focus.

Pro-choice groups have proposed for years that conservative Christian groups join with them in common programs to reduce abortions. But the efforts have pretty much gone nowhere. Because the practical measures to achieve this include sex education and birth control. And those are things that conservative Catholics oppose, in line with the Church's thoroughly antiquated official position, as do conservative Protestants, in practice if not in theory.

I can't criticize any of the specific efforts by more liberal denominations mentioned in the story to cooperate with Christian Right types. Because the article just doesn't provide enough information on them.

But, in general, I'm very skeptical of events which give dyed-in-the-wool religious rightwingers the chance to publicly mouth pleasant, generous-sounding Christian platitudes about mercy and charity and carrying about the poor, when in practice they promote the most mean and unsympathetic attitudes in every position they take.

Likewise, the Rev. Schenck's recognizes that homosexuality is not simply a lifestyle choice that can be "cured," which as Tankwoman commented here recently, is the position that many Christian Right types take. But there is no indication in the article at all that this means that he will support things like hate crimes laws or anti-discrimination statutes against gays. Cooperman's explicitly quotes Schenck: "There is no room for compromise on the sanctity of human life, the sanctity of marriage and the public acknowledgement of God." (my emphasis)

Let's give him credit for not endorsing the "homosexuality is an illness" nonsense. But it certainly doesn't say to me that he's any less enthusiastic for theocracy. Or even that he would take a serious stand against discrimination against gays and lesbians.

Cooperman does include this cautionary note:

Some observers view all this aisle-crossing mainly as political positioning.

"There's a kind of pulling back from religious war," said Mark R. Silk, director of the Center for the Study of Religion in Public Life at Trinity College in Hartford, Conn. "But I don't think one should overlook the self-interest of both sides, at this moment, in positioning themselves as willing to compromise and work with the other side." ...

"On the left, they need to show they have a religious bone in their body. On the right, they have to prove their vaunted values are not limited to one or two hot-button issues," Silk said. "So count me a little skeptical about how far this 'crossover' and 'convergence' really goes."

Count me with him on the alleged ecumenical good will of the Christian Right.

Tags: alan cooperman, christian right, christianism

| +Save/Share | |