I’ve been having a good conversation with Jeff at The Dawn Treader about the filibuster issue. To pick up the thread, in response to a comment I had made about whether conservative politics is hindering the Church from its mission, Jeff made the good point that sin — particularly selfishness — is the prime hinderance to the American Evangelical church. So here’s where it continued…
Yes, I agree that sin is the root cause of the church not being the church, and that self-centeredness is one of the besetting sins of American Evangelicalism. I didn’t mean to suggest that this filibuster issue, or politics in general, is the primary thing hindering the Church today.
For me, this understanding that popular American Evangelicalism is often self-centered makes me even more wary of jumping on any trendy political bandwagon. Does rallying for a “conservative” judiciary move us towards compassionate servanthood, or does it move us towards becoming another militant interest group demanding its “rights”? Is the emphasis on incarnating the “already” of the Kingdom while waiting patiently for the “not yet,” or are we trying to establish the Kingdom here and now through political force? Is the focus on defending the poor and oppressed, or is it on making society the way we would like it for our benefit?
I’m rambling a bit now, but maybe this last question is what’s eating at me most. I don’t believe the hearts of many of those who are in the vanguard of the religious right are anywhere near in the right place. It seems to me that they want things their way, now. Even if their way is closer to the ideal than the way things currently are, this kind of approach, in my view, undermines the deeper mission of servant leadership.
Now, at the same time, I don’t want to be overly negative about the state of Evangelicalism in America. There are many problems, but many excellent things as well. Though I’m not comfortable with how my local church does or says some things, for example, we have ministries all over our community through which many humble servants are meeting real needs and introducing people to Christ every day. Through these kinds of ministries — alcoholism recovery groups, divorce support groups, community Bible studies, hospice visits to AIDS patients, meals for families stricken by tragedy and illness, and many other such things — we are being the Church and we’re not merely blending into the larger culture. On Sunday mornings, when I lead worship, I look out over a congregation that 15 years ago was primarily old white Dutch folks, and I see those folks along with African Americans, Asians, Latinos, Indians and others gladly praising the same savior. My local church can and should do lots more along these lines, but even imperfect as it is, almost nowhere else in the broader culture is this kind of unity manifest. This is the sort of thing I want people to think of when they hear the word “Evangelical,” rather than angry rhetoric about how Nazi judges are ruining America.
8 replies on “The Evangelical Filibuster”
That’s only because you don’t believe that the judges at issue are actively promoting evil. If you did, then you would appreciate rhetoric storming at the wicked judges. Storming against wicked judges is a very traditional form of prophetic witness.
Pensans — thanks for the comment. I’m not completely sure I understand your point, though — could you elaborate a bit? Are you referring to the Old Testament prophetic literature? I would agree that the church has a role in speaking against oppression of the poor and dispossesed, as did the OT prophets, and this may well involve critcizing particular judicial opinions and judges. But the current filibuster debate seems to me to be far removed from that kind of function. Many of the “conservative” judges in question might — might — be more apt to protect the unborn, but on the other hand they might — might — be less apt to protect common people against big corporations (in employment discrimination cases, for example). The OT gives us a stark picture of corrupt judges who take bribes from the rich and deny justice to the poor. We’re talking about shades of difference in judicial philosophies within the American Constitutional tradition, and it seems to me that the black-and-white categories expressed in the OT are quite difficult to apply to that debate on a systemic basis.
I’ll try to be a little clearer. I was responding to the last line of your post. You contrasted evangelical’s “angry rhetoric” about “nazi” judges with your list of more preferable forms of expresion of faith: multi-racial congregations, AIDS hospice visiting, divorce support groups.
As you surmised, I meant that we find in the scriptures, particularly in the prophets and law, normative examples of excoriaton of wicked judges and normative requirements that judges conduct themselves fairly — not favoring the rich or the poor — rendering judgement according to the law.
Denunciation of wicked judges is a prophetic task of the church that stands on a par with other moral tasks of the church. I assumed you would admit this principle if pressed.
Thus, I concluded that the actual reason your lack of enthusiasm for the current denunciations of judges was based on your view that they really weren’t that bad.
This seems to be precisely the view that you express in your comment. You say this is not black and white, etc. Obviously, many evangelicals, who agree with you about other matters, disagree with you most strongly about this point.
They regard the current crop of judges as involved in fundamentally lawless and oppressive behavior — not just towards the poor but towards all society — not just in the matter of abortion but in many of the most important segments of law.
But my point is only that your disagreement with other Christians is not moral, contrary to the tone of your post; it is in the appraisal of the current judges. Many evangelials believe, against your view, that the current judges are equivalent to the wicked judges condemned in the past. Thus, they regard denunciaton of those judges as a moral duty on par with those that you discuss.
I am sure that we can all look at this issue with greater respect for its complexity. Your suggestion for example that “conservative” judges are more likely to oppress the poor or favor employment discrimination seems unconvincing and stereotyped to me. If conservative judges are influenced by rich corporations, then liberal judges are influenced by the far far richer federal bureaucracy. If conservative judges are to be equated with those favoring the rich, then let liberal judges be equated with Absalom — giving favoring every man’s suit so that he might illegitimately seize power.
Pensans, thanks again for your comments. You state that “[m]any evangelials believe, against your view, that the current judges are equivalent to the wicked judges condemned in the past. Thus, they regard denunciaton of those judges as a moral duty on par with those that you discuss.” I’m not convinced that most evangelicals have thought this issue through to the extent you suggest. Outside a few controversial U.S. Supreme Court decisions and perhaps the Schiavo case, I doubt most evangelicals have any clue at all about the decisions a typical judge makes on a day-to-day basis, much less having any personal knowledge of the moral character of any given judge. I think most evangelicals would shy away from making the sweeping statement that American judges, in general, are on par with the corrupt judges condemned in the OT. Most evangelicals who make such statements, in my view, typically do so based on a very small sample of the entire judiciary.
So, in one sense, I suppose you’re right. I don’t think we can make the sorts of moral generalizations about the American judiciary that you want to make. And, from the other side of the coin, it seems that you agree with me. My characterization of “conservative” judges was, as you’ve noted, stereotypical and unfair. Not all “conservative” judges automatically tend to favor big corporations, and sometimes the big corporations have meritorious claims and defenses, even against the little guy. This is exactly my point: for the most part, we aren’t talking about the sort of systemic judicial corruption reflected in the OT prohpetic writings. We’re talking about shades of difference in jurisprudential philosophy within our unique Constitutional context. These differences are important, and should be debated, but in my view many evangelicals are going too far, speaking too loudly, and spending too much energy in behalf of one particular strand of that philosphy.
I do agree that your claim that evangelicals are spending too much time on judicial nominations depends on your claim that the outcome of those nominations are not that significant because they deal with “shades of jurisprudential philosophy.” If you accept that, just about anytime is too much. If you reject that, then the amount of attention given may be just right.
But I think you draw an mistaken inference from the rest of my remarks. I do believe that your remarks about “conservative” judges were, as you agree, unfair and stereotypical. It doesn’t follow that I believe that all remarks about judges, conservative or liberal, are unfair and stereotypical.
As it happens, I think there are lots of valid generalization to be made about the modern judiciary . . . especially, the higher federal courts which are the focus of the filibuster controversy. Your remarks were unfair and stereotypical because, well, they seemed to be based on a bias and unsupportable . . . not because all such remarks are.
I will not draw any generalizations myself. But let me simply note that the view that most evangelicals share — i.e. that the modern judiciary differs not just in shade of philosophy from lawful judging but has abandoned fair judging in preference for enforcing its political will — is a reasonable view shared by many outside the evangelical community.
For example, let me quote the commentary of John Leo, explaining the concern of those who support the filibuster “as framed by blogger Mickey Kaus (a conservative Democrat, as it happens): “In the post-Warren era, judges . . . have almost uncheckable antidemocratic power. The Constitution has been durably politicized in a way that the Framers didn’t anticipate.” Burt Neuborne of New York University law school said recently that his fellow Democrats may be making a mistake by depending so heavily on judges to establish law without seeking true public support.
Well, that’s one way of putting it. Another is simply to say that the Democrats consistently rely on judges to impose legislation that they can’t get through the normal democratic process because majorities don’t want it. As a result, our politics and our courts have been deformed.”
Now if Kaus and Neuborne are right, then the modern judiciary is not judging fairly according to law. It is supporting a political party that many Christians reasonably regard as hostile to them. Nor then is the dispute between liberals who call for maintaing/expanding the status quo and conservative who call for a return to former principles merely a matter of shades of legal philosophy.
To give an example, when the liberal judges invented constitutional rights to abortion and homosexual intercourse, a shade of philosophy did not seem to be at issue. A culture war seems a fairer characterization of the lawless imposition of one political party’s cultural views on a nation. When school prayer was suddenly ruled unconstitutional, it seemed not a shade but a revolution in the relation between state and church.
Pensans,
I think you make some fair points here and some unfair ones. The unfair point is to suggest that generalizations and stereotypes are inadequate except when you’re making them. We each have to examine our own generalizations. It’s rhetorically convenient to make sweeping statements about “liberal” or “activist” judges, but in my view such generalizations are not helpful.
On the other hand, you do make some fair points about some judges on the federal appellate courts and Supreme Court. I agree that there are lines of case law with respect to life issues, sexuality and religion in which the Supreme Court and some federal appellate courts have overstepped their legitimate roles and decided the issues based on cultural views rather than the law.
But the step from that very focused problem to the Old Testament rhetoric about a generally corrupt judiciary is an inappropriate and potentially dangerous one. The judges of the federal appellate courts and Supreme Court constitute only a tiny fraction of the judges in the courts throughout the United States. In municipalites and counties, at the State appellate levels, in administrative law courts, in arbitration and other ADR panels, in federal trial courts, even in federal appellate courts and the U.S. Supreme Court, there are honest, hard-working judges who do their best to resolve the tens of thousands of cases they hear every year according to the facts and law. If you want to use the language of a “culture war,” you need to understand that you’re waging war against these judges as well as against the few with whom you may have some legitimate complaint. Even if engaging in “culture war” is an appropriate role for the Church — a question I think is dubious — I doubt that’s a war we should want to fight.
I was travelling and unable to note my enjoyment of our conversation and your cordial replies. Thank you for the interesting discussion.
Warm regards,
Pensans
Pensans, thanks for stopping by. Hope to see you again soon.