Balkinization: Why Theology Matters

Why Theology Matters

Sandy Levinson

A story in tomorrow's (Dec. 21) New York Times aptly entitled "Huckabee, Back in Iowa, Brings Christmas Message," includes the following:

[W]hile appealing openly to his core audience as someone who says he is driven “by convictions, not just positions,” Mr. Huckabee has been careful to delimit the role he sees for faith in public life. An elected official’s faith “is not something like a sweater that you put on and take off as a convenience,” he told the same audiences. “But should I be able to force it on somebody else? Of course not.”

Before one leaps to the conclusion that this is entirely reassuring and that there are not "theocratic" overtones in Mr. Huckabee's campaign, his remark about not "forcing" his convictions upon others must be placed within the tradition of (most) Protestant reformers, who indeed shared the conviction that belief in God and, even more to the point, acceptance of Jesus, in Mitt Romney's words, as "the Son of God and Savior of Mankind," must be voluntary or, at least, the gift of grace. Most Protestants had little patience for forced conversion a la Spanish Catholicism in the late 15th century and the Inquisition. I grew up in Hendersonville, North Carolina. I have written of my continued indebtedness to Christian friends, including Southern Baptists, Huckabee's own denomination, in helping to forge my own intellectual independence. What these friends, especially the Southern Baptists, expressed was the wish that I would accept Jesus and therefore be eligible for salvation, but my refusal to do so never affected our friendship and they never would have thought of "forcing" that belief on me.

BUT, with regard to Mr. Huckabee, it is an entirely different matter when we are talking not about "religious convictions"--i.e., is Jesus really the "Savior of Mankind"?--but, rather, viewpoints that are ostensibly connected with those convictions regarding regulation not of belief, but, rather, of behavior. Mr. Huckabee, for all of his amiability and seeming concern, in his own way, for the poor among us (which is no small matter in a plutocratic political party), is more than willing to foist his "behavioral convictions" upon the rest of us, most dramatically with regard to sexuality and reproductive choice (which are not the same thing) and, it appears, with regard to establishing that America is a "Christian nation," even if, as a good Baptist, he certainly won't force those of us who aren't Christian actually to assert our own belief in Christian propositions.

Now it's possible that I'm utterly wrong in the above analyses, for I certainly don't view myself as an expert on Christian theology, and I am even less of an expert on Mike Huckabee, who is certainly not my candidate and, I think, is unlikely to emerge as the candidate of the Republican Party unless they have a true death wish in the upcoming election. But if Mitt Romney is expected to start discussing the details of Mormon theology, beginning with the relationship between Jesus and Lucifer, then it is certainly fair that Mr. Huckabee be asked precisely what can be "forced" on non-believers and what cannot. Unfortunately, I suspect that most reporters covering the campaign are illiterate in basic theology and are inequipped to have a serious exchange with Mr. Huckabee or anyone else. So it would really be wonderful if the Times would send Peter Steinfels, who most certainly is knowledgeable, to interview Mr. Huckabee and ask him to spell out the implications of his statement that, like Bill Clinton, another Southern Baptist who said much the same thing, his "religious convictions" are central to the way he sees his vocation as a politician. Zev Chafets might have certain reportial skills, but I don't think he is quite the person one would choose to elaborate sophisticated theological understandings (nor, it turns out, a truly sufficient understanding of the remarkable events surrounding the resignation of Jim Guy Tucker and the accession of Mr. Huckabee to the governorship of Arkansas).

Any politician who dares to say (something like) "I always ask what would Jesus do" should be asked how, exactly, he/she ascertains what the historical figure Jesus of Nazareth, born, at least by convention, approximately 2011 years ago this week, would do with regard to 21st century realities. Does Mike Huckabee agree with Jimmy Carter, another Southern Baptist, that "lust in one's heart" is the equivalent of adultery, and, if adulery is criminally punishable (should it be?), should sufficient evidence of such lust (which, of course, might usually be heard to obtain, though in the days of the internet it might be far easier than before) be enough to support a conviction? After all, Jesus did say that lust could be equivalent to adultery. Was he wrong? (Bill Clinton thought that he could escape being branded an adulterer by taking refuge in oral sex; would Jesus have recognized such a distinction?)

It is, of course, another question entirely whether we should care what Jesus would do. I trust that no politician interested in election would raise this question, alas.

Posted 10:46 PM by Sandy Levinson [link]

Comments:

A Interesting post. I can not speak for Huckabee but as a supporter I tend to think his answers would mirror Catholic SOcial Justice thought to a certain degree. Which is one reason why I support him. That is a brand of realistic and robust conservatism but tempered with knowledge that the poor the disadvantaged must not be taken advantage of and in fact we should hear their plea. FOr all the over top talk coming from the National Review Crowd(Mrs Lopez called him a Socialist the other day) that is what he represents.

As to examples on ABortion and sexuality(I think you are talking about gay marriage) well there is not much difference btween his views and the rest of the Republicans with the exception of Rudy. So I am not sure as to his "Social views" how they are much more different than anyone else.

I think instead of just going on about"Oh my gosh are you are a scary minister" type questions one could look at Arkansas. Did Huckabee try to impose some Theocratic What would JEsus do State? I think he governed it is true in the treadition of the Western Judeo/Christian ethic but his way of governing was not much different than his counterparts. HE still had to balance a budget, he still had to produce results, he still had to make sure the potholes were filled. THe last I looked Little Rock had not become Calvin's Geneva and yes the Univ of Arkansas keeps on teaching Evolution and other things, and Eureka SPrings still had a vibrant gay sub culture where gay men and women all went up and had "unofficial" marriage ceremonies. No one was being locked up. So I think as to his style of Governing and its consequences we have a clue

# posted by

James H : 1:10 AM

Of course, being willing to foist "behavioral convictions" on the rest of us isn't exactly the sole province of religionists. I've run across a fair number of seculars who are only too willing to impose their convictions on others, and in a pretty heavy handed way, too.

# posted by

Brett : 10:42 AM

I think Mark Twain expressed your concern in his usual pithy way: The objection to Puritans is not that they try to make us think as they do, it's that they try to make us do as they think.

# posted by

Mark Field : 11:52 AM

If you know a politician's positions, does it matter how they arrived at them and why? I think the answer is yes to the extent we (the public) have an interest in evaluating how a potential President will react in an unforeseen situation.

If a candidate says 'my religious views play an important part in my political thinking', I want the candidate to explain that in some detail. If that claim isn't made, I think it wouldn't be appropriate to ask.

Personally, I don't care whether or not I share that candidate's theological ideas as much as I care about whether I share his or her policy goals and political principles, even though mine are determined primarily by my theological beliefs.

Let me explain that with an example. I'm a member of the National Religious Campaign Against Torture because torture is both morally abhorrent and theologically indefensible (in my belief system). When I discuss the subject in my Sunday Bible study class I make moral and theological arguments against torture. When I discuss it with my atheist friend at work, I make practical and moral arguments against it. Politics is about building coalitions.

In today's political environment, religion is seen as a marker of a special interest group, a sort of tribal emblem. Indeed, the 'religious right', 'values voters, etc. have very little in common theologically. What that poltical tribe shares is a peculiarly American cultural milieu of authoritarianism, sexual repression, national exceptionalism, and militarism that's pretty hard to square with the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth.

# posted by

William Ockham : 11:58 AM

If theology matters, then maybe Huck should go back to school and finish his theology degree and then comeback in 2016.

Also there was a great debate on the Christianity of latter-day saints.

http://blog.beliefnet.com/blogalogue/mormondebate/

Start reading at the bottom of the page.

If Mitt was a Methodist or a Baptist, what would Huckabee's support look like?

Just those that want a high sales tax?

# posted by

Martin : 12:17 PM

I am very grateful to James H for his interesting (and courteous) post. I hope he is right about Huckabee's de facto commitment to the Catholic Social Justice tradition, which I admire greatly.

# posted by

Sandy Levinson : 12:24 PM

I feel safe in predicting that the most earth-shattering elements in Huckabee's theology will remain out of view. If we are "lucky," we may hear points that hit the usual laundry list of issues: lifestyle choices, "Happy Holidays" and suchlike. If we "hit the jackpot," headlines will tell of how, for Huckabee, pastors' views on repentance trump those of parole boards.

This, or what we get of it, will count as religious revelation, the full story, and religious moderates and the unaffiliated will be drummed up to vote against him. But what is most disturbing will remain in that "now you see it, now you don't" zone where the cross in the window hovers. And if he is elected, what you don't see is what you'll get. By "you" I mean everyone outside the true believers, who see it all just as clearly as admen see the cross in the window.

The problem is not that the further details are so recondite but that they leave us at a loss to determine how he would represent us -- or, rather, rule, since representation would have little to do with it -- and to the extent answers came to mind, they would be too dreadful to hold in one's head.

Here are a few of the things that should but won't be asked of Huckabee.

1. Biblical literalism. How old is the earth? Is it at the geographic center of the universe? Through what interpretive lens are we to read, say, ice core samples that speak to CO2 levels before anything existed? Are there any policy implications of the difference between your view and that of the scientific community? Is this why environmentalism is kind of a sin?

2. Apocalypse Bible Style. Is the Book of Revelation true roughly as fleshed out in the Left Behind series? If so – and allowing that no one can really say when – are you operating on the assumption that these prophecies are close to coming true? Is Jewish occupation of the lands mentioned in Genesis 12 required for the Second Coming? If so, should it be US policy to hasten the end of days?

3. Apocalypse Science Style. Should we worry about potential disasters not addressed in, and perhaps incompatible with, biblical prophecies, e.g. the melting of the glaciers and polar caps that account for where all the water went after the Great Flood, an event God promised never to repeat?

4. Militarism and National Destiny. Should the US military be put on a Christian evangelical footing? Are the patterns and practices Mikey Weinstein and others have brought to light and analogies between US and British imperial conflicts with the Muslim world something that should give us pause or egg us on? Does our being a Christian nation have anything to do with such matters?

5. Feuds Within the Remnant. Who is right, the Replacement Theologians who see the Jews as needing conversion, or the Dispensationalists who see the covenant with Abraham as still in effect and the church as a parenthesis? If in your view this is the sort of religious division a US president should rise above in the interest of political consensus, are there any other religious divisions worthy of such neutrality and, if so, how would you maintain it given your answers to the previous questions?

These things are not hard to ask. One has simply to utter them in the man's physical presence. Their predicate is well-laid, has been for nearly 7 years now. And yet which is likely to come first, the end of days or such questions from Tim Russert?

# posted by

Occasional Observer : 12:34 PM

I'm more than a bit confused by james h's contention that Huckabee's positions have some relationship to the Catholic Social Justice tradition. I don't see anything in Huckabee's public statements to support that and it seems unlikely that a Republican presidential candidate would make that claim himself.

There have been some socially liberal Southern Baptists (e.g. Jimmy Carter), but where's the evidence that Huckabee is among them? Most of us (politically and socially liberal former Southern Baptists) have been essentially forced out of the denomination. Even my father, a current Southern Baptist minister, admits that there is a substantial effort to turn the denomination into the religious wing of the Republican party. That effort entails repudiating most of the ideas commonly associated with Catholic Social Justice teaching.

# posted by

William Ockham : 2:46 PM

Occasional Observer raises a number of very interesting questions. As we now know, "Christian Zionism" is a very important part of contemporary American politics. I would be extremely interested in Huckabee's theological views concerning the sacral status of the State of Israel and the implications for policy in the Middle East.

As a matter of fact, I'm most terrified of Rudy Giuliani, who is willing to make Norman Podheretz one of his principal foreign policy advistors, and there's certainly no reason to believe that Giuliani's views of Israel are shaped by theology. Still, I think that someone so self-consciously constituted by his religious identity as Huckabee is can be asked about Israel in the way I suggest. Needless to say, I think that Tim Russert is exceedingly unlikely to ask any intelligent questions along these lines. That's why the Times should request an interview conducted by Peter Steinfels.

# posted by

Sandy Levinson : 12:02 AM

Thanks for the acknowledgment. Regarding Christian Zionism, Peter Steinfels – or whoever breaks through with a question list – should have a mike in one hand and a history book in the other. History's cycles take too long for our in-the-moment, "that was then, this is now" mindset to grapple with. We can't agree on what last week's events mean for this one, and so we deem everything earlier totally irrelevant.

And so it's, "Another week, another dark horse poll surge," and it's, "Let's give a listen, and by all means give him a fair shake." Never mind what we've gone through these last 7 years, that we aren't allowed to read his conveniently lost sermons, that he is playing to the crowd that, to everyone else's amazement, cheers on as the Middle East goes up in flames. Never mind the cross in the window. Let's see how he ran Arkansas. Let's judge him on his record. This is what counts as political sense, as objectivity, as balance, as fair play.

A very good book came out this year that puts Christian Zionism (as it is now called) in an American (and, to a degree, British) perspective: Michael B. Oren's Power, Faith, and Fantasy: America in the Middle East 1776 to the Present. Oren, no enemy of either Israel or the US (nor am I, if anyone is wondering), charts the influence of Restorationism, the idea that the Jews' return to Zion would precipitate the Second Coming. Christian Zionism is not a parallel to Restorationism but its continuation. Doctrines this deep do not disappear. At best they are held in check in ways that the world's great religions do when they are on their best behavior. But they do not go away, least of all when they have so much to bring them to the fore.

That's not to say there aren't historical parallels that can't be causally linked to the present but are simply uncanny. One is a highly influential antebellum exposition of Restorationism titled The Valley of Vision; or, The Dry Bones of Israel Revived, by one George Bush. One of three and, yes, an ancestor of the other two. But out of our ken.

I could say as much on each of the other topics my comment raised, but I'll be briefer. Ronald Numbers, a respected historian of science and, like me, no opponent of religion as such, guesses that fundamentalists consciously rejected readings of Genesis along lines compatible with evolution in order to fund apocalyptic readings of Revelation, which require so kooky a take on the words that only an equally kooky reading of the creation story could sustain them.

On the Christianization of the US military – which proceeds apace despite cabined-off concerns within the military and the administration itself – there are direct analogues in British imperial history, which did a lot to summon up Muslim resentment and make Wahhabism a viable sect. BBC 2 aired a 3-part documentary on the subject, Clash of the Worlds. (Vanquished empires, it seems, can be honest about their past.) It is now up, over at http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18930.htm.

It is distressing beyond words to watch the hubris of a nation whose sense of historical destiny is now so hopelessly warped – and threatened – that it no longer cares to know its own history. This is a recipe for disaster, for Santayana's remark applies to ideas, not just tangible events, and no idea is more enduringly mesmerizing than the religious idea. Where it shapes lives, it is a wondrous thing. When it extends itself to hastening the end of days, it violates its own sober instruction.

Lincoln absorbed those lessons, almost by instinct. He could speak across a civil divide in religious tones without letting them affect how he used the powers of his office. Carter could haggle with Menachem Begin over the details of a biblical map undoubtedly with hopes for a Second Coming in his heart, yet he knew his mandate was to make peace on mutual terms.

Our current president and his popular base, such as it is, are light years from this reasoned frame of mind, and if Huckabee deserves a fair chance, it is to show -- despite all indications to the contrary -- that he is at least within hailing distance of it. But forgive me if I am doubtful of that possibility. I know too much about the stirrings behind American fundamentalism not to think that an honest renunciation on his part would be an act of political suicide.

# posted by

Occasional Observer : 1:04 PM

In order to be happy oneself it is necessary to make at least one other person happy.
Agen Judi Online Terpercaya

# posted by

Unknown : 12:35 PM