Planting Liberally

Over the past few weeks, there has been a quiet but significant battle raging between religious progressives and and a coalition of evangelicals and centrists over who represents the real religious progressive voice in American politics.  I don't want to delve too far into it, but I thought I'd do a brief blow-by-blow summary for anyone who's interested.

• On Jan. 15, Third Way and Faith in Public Life released "Come Let Us Reason Together", a policy platform signed by a variety of religious leaders, purporting to be a "compromise" between religious progressives and evangelicals.  The substance of the compromise was much of what we've seen before: reducing abortions and ending job discrimination against gays, and little else.
• That document drew a number of stinging critiques from religious progressives, including one by Rev. Osagyefou Sekou which called the document nothing more than "the continued blessing of the religious right’s cultural politics", and another by Rev. Deb Haffner, who said that the document's billing was false advertising, citing the under-representation of progressive viewpoints among the document's authors.
• Robert Jones, one of the principal authors of the document, responded in kind, claiming that the authors of Dispatches from the Religious Left were being shrill and uncivil.
• This week, Pastor Dan and Fred Clarkson teamed up to respond to Jones.  Pastor Dan's essay defends ideological differences for their own sake, arguing that sometimes debate and political wrangling reflect honest disagreements over values and economic priorities.  Clarkson's essay defends the Dispatches contributors and points out that real progress can't be accomplished by a group of people bloviating about platforms anyway; organizing is the key to real progressive change.

Since I was one of the contributors to Dispatches, it's not hard to guess where my sympathies lie.  I don't see how the "Come Let Us Reason Together" document represents anything like a consensus with the energetic, and often quite radical, social critique of religious progressives.  Unfortunately, given the early signs coming out of Obama's Faith Advisory Council Office of Faith-Based Initiatives, it looks like the religious centrists are holding sway within the administration.  It's up to progressives to keep organizing, I guess.

In case you missed it, there was a full-on blogswarm this week, centering around the growing rift between the Religious Left and the Religious Industrial Complex. The blogswarm was touched off by Sarah Posner's article in Religion Dispatches, itself a response to Dispatches from the Religious Left. PastorDan has a good, linky reflection on the blogswarm at Street Prophets; check it out if you want the gory details.

The main line of argument, which we've seen before, is something like this: Religious Left-ists argue that reproductive choice and gay rights are not compromise-able issues, they are fundamentally matters of conscience. Democrats should not seek to "split the difference" with moderate religious voters over these issues, because people's fundamental rights are not something we should haggle over. The Religious Industrial Complex, represented this week by Faith in Public Life, counsels Democrats to do exactly that, pleading that it is possible to win elections by cajoling swing voters on these sorts of issues.

The Religious-Industrial Complex (Digby's term, but popularized and used frequently by PastorDan) has been making these sorts of arguments for a long time, and I think they are largely dubious. For one thing, I'm not convinced that religious moderates can be convinced by hair-splitting on abortion and gay rights; any kind of faith-based voting in this year's election was clearly overwhelmed by economic-meltdown-based voting, and there were other issues confounding the 2006 election results, too. For another thing, I'm not sure we would want to do that even if we could. Atheists and non-Christians, two groups that are significantly more progressive than religious moderates, are also growing quickly in size. Because of that, appealing too heavily to religious moderates by giving up core convictions on reproductive choice and gay rights could be a double-whammy: not only would that roll back progress on important issues, it might be electorally disastrous.

But I will say this much about the Religious-Industrial Complex: it is well-organized and it does a good job of persuading politicians and framing issues. It is all well and good for the Religious Left to talk about prophetic vision and social justice - that is clearly important - but projecting power requires this sort of organization and persuasion.

That is a point made abundantly clear in Dispatches from the Religious Left, by Fred Clarkson, Marshall Ganz and others. But I think we have yet to really talk about what kind of organizing is necessary. Certainly, there is a need for more and better grassroots community organizing on localized but important issues - the kind of thing that the Industrial Areas Foundation does. Certainly, there is a need to engage and mobilize progressive religious folks. Progressive congregations are already involved in some of that work, althouth there is always room for improvement. But there is also a need to aggregate and consolidate religious power on a larger scale, and that is where progressive voices are largely silent.

While this sounds like a grand task, I actually think it is a bit simpler than that. Consider what the Religious-Industrial Complex has accomplished, with really a very small number of practitioners: a handful of charismatic and popular religious leaders, speakers and authors (Jim Wallis, Rick Warren, Joel Hunter); a snappy political action committee (the Matthew 25 Network); an inside-the-Beltway think tank (FiPL) and a well-placed political consultant (Mara Vanderslice of Common Good Strategies). I don't even think these folks are really all that tightly integrated, in the sense that, as far as I know, they don't coordinate in closed-door strategy sessions on how best to promote, as Jim Wallis calls it, the "radical center". There is, to be sure, a common vocabulary within the Religious Industrial Complex, and it doesn't hurt to have that vocabulary parroted in media, and to have that vocabulary commonly (if incorrectly) assumed to speak for a large bloc of voters.

It would be tempting to look at this constellation of assets and think, "gee, we could build one of those for ourselves" - and no doubt the Religious Left could. But rather than mimicking the Religious Industrial Complex, I think the Religious Left needs to come up with its own structures for making the basic point that that there is a large and growing bloc of voters sympathetic to the beliefs and values of religious progressives, and that it is possible to win elections, and to govern, with the support of that bloc.

My instinct tells me that the Religious Left will come to power through quite a different path than the Religious Industrial Complex. In particular, the progress on marriage equality in the next couple of years is going to be a proving ground. Already, the Religious Left has been out front and very active on this issue. But with the new Democratic trifecta in New York, we have the potential to make a large, pro-active, legislatively-won gain on this issue, in a huge and important state. The shape of religious lobbying in that battle will be quite different than the defensive posture taken in the battle to resist Goodridge overrides in Massachusetts, and I think (or hope, in any case) that it will help create a new class of political operators, capable of gathering and wielding progressive religious support.

There are other opportunities, too. With Democrats in power until at least 2012, we will see the emergence of a new green energy industry, a fight for universal health care coverage, and new opportunities (and urgent need for) more union organizing. Each of these issues offers a different set of opportunities for the Religious Left to work with a new set of allies, and to set the stage for the emergence of a more progressive Democratic party.

If you missed our book launch for Dispatches from the Religious Left earlier this week, you can check out many of the same speakers from the event discussing the Religious Left on GritTV:

Laura Flanders really pushes the panelists on the electoral might of the Religious Left. I think it's no secret that the Religious Left is no match, electorally, for the Religious Right. The panelists are all sort of grappling with this problem, and how to solve it, paper over it, or just accept it. The shadows of religious activism in the 60's weighs heavily over this discussion.

I'm of a few minds on this question. Is it right for churches, to sink their teeth in electoral politics? Maybe in some non-partisan ways. Is it right for non-church political action committees - a leftist version of the Christian Coalition, say - to form and begin organizing across election cycles, the way MoveOn and DFA do? I think that's considerably more acceptable, as long as those organizations follow all the appropriate tax laws.

I also think that we are focused a little too keenly on electoral politics. There are other ways to accrue organized power in the US, and some of these methods are much less legally tricky. One way is to grow aggressively, to accrue members who are more likely to vote progressive simply because they are a member of a progressive religious community. Another way is to define a progressive theology which differs with conservative theology, and to attach the conservative political worldview at its foundation.

A final, and perhaps most important, method is to "rehearse our idealist vision" in congregations, as Rev. Dr. Jacqui Lewis says in the GritTV video. That means that congregations become explicitly inclusive, multi-racial and multi-ethnic, and welcoming to LGBT individuals. It also means that they incubate and nurture community organizations and labor unions, and help marginalized people gain power. This kind of work not only makes the world a more just place; it also accrues power by creating lifelong progressives, people who are viscerally, and more or less permanently, connected to progressive values through real-life experience.

To be sure, some congregations are already doing some of this work. But are enough of them doing it? At the book launch, Rev. Lewis says that only 4% of Christian congregations in the country are explicitly multi-racial; there are certainly some progressive ones in the remaining 96%. I don't know what the numbers are on churches which are incubating labor unions and community organizing, but there is certainly more to do.

The book launch for Dispatches from the Religious Left is coming up on Tuesday, Oct. 14.  In anticipation of the event, I'm running a series this weekend on a few essays from the book.  Yesterday I wrote about PastorDan's essay on the role of the Religious Left (PastorDan responded here), as well as Rev. Debra Haffner and Timothy Palmer's essay on a theology of sexual justice.

The third part of the book is dedicated to "getting from here to there", and is a bit more nuts-and-bolts-oriented than the first two parts.  It includes the essay my wife and I wrote on new media, which focuses on helping religious organizations find their voice online.  However, since that material is probably pretty familiar to many blog readers, I'm instead going to focus on the contribution by Frederick Clarkson (who is also the editor of the book), titled "Three wheels that need not be reinvented".

Fred's main argument is that the Religious Left must get more involved in electoral politics.  By way of contrast he points to the Religious Right, which actively participates in party primaries, registers voters, and maintains high-quality voter lists that persist from one cycle to another.  All of these ingredients help the Right exert power far beyond its numbers, and Clarkson argues that the Left must respond in kind in order to realize its vision.  His chapter profiles three progressive political organizations in Massachusetts, and offers them as organizing models for Religious Leftists.

The first organization is Neighbor-to-Neighbor, a statewide organization whose goal is to register voters in low-income communities in order to boost turnout and elect progressive representative.  The organization has a "Working Families Agenda" which it uses to engage and register voters throughout the year.  At election time, these efforts are reinforced by personal contact.  In this way, Neighbor-to-Neighbor keeps its constituents engaged across election cycles, and is able to build a high-quality voter list which forms the basis for electoral efforts.

The second organization is Progressive Democrats of Massachusetts, an alliance of volunteer-run chapters throughout the state.   PDM was founded in the wake of Robert Reich's unsuccessful bid for governor in 2002.  Reich's run was a rallying point for progressives in a very un-progressive year, and in some ways helped pave the way for Deval Patrick's dramatic upset victory in 2006.  PDM's goal is to elect progressives in Democratic party primaries - which, in many areas in Massachusetts, is really where the election is held, since voters overwhelmingly back Democrats in the general election.

The third organization is MassVote, née BostonVote.  MassVote encourages non-profit social service agencies to register and mobilize their constituents, in order to build support for their programs within state government.  The organization has developed an innovative set of resources to conduct this kind of registration and mobilization at low cost, and within the rules for electioneering by non-profits.  This last point should be emphasized: the organization doesn't encourage its member agencies to engage in partisan activity; instead, agencies do non-partisan voter registration and education work.  That work brings more progressive voters to the polls, and elects progressive representatives; but that's incident to the target voter population, rather than the result of any particularly partisan activity.  (Disclosure: A few years ago MassVote was a prospective client for the company I worked for at the time.)

Clarkson wants the Religious Left to adopt some of these models and integrate it into its own work - while following IRS rules.  As MassVote clearly demonstrates, it is possible to create a progressive electorate without stepping outside the boundaries of 501(c)3 regulations, simply by targeting non-partisan voter registration, mobilization, and non-biased education efforts at progressive voter populations.

Fred's essay is a good starting point for prodding religious organizations to participate in electoral politics.  However, I think the Religious Left will need to build some infrastructure - both theoretical and organizational - in order to realize this vision.

For starters, we will need to create and promote what I call a "theology of participation" - an argument that democratic participation by our congregations is not just ok, but in fact necessary.  Many liberal congregations are already committed to social justice in a variety of ways, so I don't think this will be a particularly hard sell.  On the other hand, some liberal congregations are also instinctively allergic to politics in the pulpit, and congregants might become incensed at anything which appears to violate the spirit of separation of church and state separation.  Religious leaders who want to register and mobilize their congregations should be clear about a few key points: first, that democratic participation is a profound act of bearing witness to one's value system; second, that it is a way to support the church's social justice mission; and finally, that the congregation is not endorsing any party or candidate, and that it is up to individual congregants to decide which candidate or party will best support social justice.

On top of this theology of participation, congregations will need to layer a set of practices to encourge participation.  These practices begin with voter registration drives.  They also include basic education, especially for local elections.  Congregations should ensure that their members know when the election is as well as the meaning of various offices on the ballot is.  Finally, within certain boundaries, congregations can help their members learn about the candidates who are running for office.  This last step will require a great deal of delicacy, as it's entirely easy to cross the line from voter education to candidate endorsement - even without intention.  Some congregations may want to eschew this step entirely, or may want to simply encourage their members to obtain a copy of the ballot a week or two before the election and to educate themselves.  (Or to organize their own ballot parties.)

On top of this level of activity within congregations, the Religious Left should build organizations which can aggregate this activity and harvest the results across election cycles.  Congregation-organized voter registration drives should be harvested into long-lasting and well-maintained voter lists.  Those voters, in turn, should be engaged about important issues year-round, and should be targeted for mobilization at election time.  This kind of work is too far outside the mission of individual congregations.  And it is not particularly well-suited to single-issue groups like the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice.  So new, multi-issue issue groups will need to be built.

In some ways, this three-tiered approach to voter registration and mobilization - beginning with theological foundations, proceeding to routine practice, and culminating in aggregation and professional cross-cyclical efforts - is just the beginning.  As a movement with a broad commitment to social justice, the Religious Left can, and should, be heavily involved in building progressive power outside of the voting booth.  In particular, the Religious Left should incubate labor organizing and community organizing efforts; leaders should encourage their congregations to support these organizations in meetings and on picket lines, and should offer meeting space or other resources where necessary.  Not only are these efforts non-partisan, but they are profoundly faithful acts of social justice, which will have a strong foundation in the theological tradition of the vast majority of Religious Left congregations.  (Indeed, many liberal congregations are already doing this kind of work, and have been doing it for a long time, much to their credit.  I'm merely arguing for more of this kind of work, and for liberal congregations to be more pro-active in seeking out and supporting this kind of capcity-building social justice work, where it makes sense.)  In most cases, this kind of work will ultimately result in more power for the progressive movement, but that is just the natural result of empowering marginalized people, rather than an explicit act of partisanship.

Fred Clarkson has been arguing for a more electorally engaged Religious Left for a long time.  He's seen the Religious Right's efforts to build power in Republican Party committees and primaries in person.  The kind of voter registration and mobilization efforts he advocates for - and many others - are long overdue.

This weekend, in anticipation of the book launch of Dispatches from the Religious Left, I am running a series on a few selected essays from the book.  Earlier today, I posted my review of PastorDan's essay on the role of the Religious Left.  This post is about an essay by Rev. Debra Haffner and Timothy Palmer: "Towards a theology of sexual justice."

Sexual justice, as defined by this essay, is quite broad:

Indeed, the full scope of sexual justice embraces anyone who is concerned with gender equality, reproductive rights and health care, and the right to privacy, not to mention education, equality of opportunity and the dignity of all persons.

These issues are far too important to far too many people to sweep under the rug in seeking the support of an ever-elusive "Religious Center", as Jim Wallis argues.  So how is the Religious Left to support sexual justice?

The essay urges Religious Leftists to support a wide array of positions under the umbrella of sexual justice, including comprehensive, age-appropriate sexuality education; full access to sexual and reproductive health services; and full inclusion of women and LGBT individuals in public life.  Additionally, the essay calls for better awareness and understanding of adolescent sexuality and sexual and gender diversity.

The key to this agenda is the development of a "theology of sexual justice".  Haffner and Palmer's organization, the Religious Institute on Sexual Morality, Justice and Healing, has done considerable work in framing sexual justice in a religious context.  The theology which has emerged from this work focuses on personal relationships, integrity, and justice.  The essay discusses this theology with particular regard for children and adolescents (who need help learning about sexuality and making good decisions about personal relationships); women (who deserve agency); and LGBT individuals (who have a right to full inclusion in public and religious life).

The essay explicitly rejects the narrow biblical view of these issues.  For example, in addressing abortion: "Scripture neither condemns nor prohibits abortion.  It does, however, call people to act compassionately and justly when facing difficult moral decisions.  Scriptural commitment to the most marginalized means that pregnancy, childbearing and abortion should be safe for all women."  The essay ends on a hopeful note, noting positive trends that suggest that liberal views of sexual justice are ascendant.

This kind of theological argumentation is, I think, a valuable contribution from the Religious Left.  While the Religious Right has carefully worked to close the door on theological debate of political issues, the Religious Left can blow the door off its hinges.  Certainly, this kind of debate can begin with direct biblical argumentation: the Bible does not say much about abortion, and it says almost nothing about homosexuality - and even less about how we understand it today.  But the debate is much broader, and in this sense the diversity of the Religious Left is a key strength.  For while the Bible might or might not condemn abortion, there are many people for whom the Bible, or the New Testament, is simply irrelevant, and these people have a right to make a theological argument about the issues of the day.  A healthy public theological debate about political issues can only diminish the influence of the Religious Right.

However, I think the essay stops short, in that it treats sexual injustice as merely a platform promoted by a select few leaders of the Religious Right.  In my view sexual injustice is much more; it draws on a crisis of identity and a fear of new and confusing realities among the rank-and-file.  Fear of the sexual other is interwoven throughout conservative culture, at least as far back as the days of post-World War II redbaiting, according to Rick Perlstein's Nixonland.  And it is certainly has a pernicious and sinister influence on our politics today.

But while in the political realm it is ok, and perhaps even necessary, to forthrightly reject this kind of fear, and to contrast it with open-ended inclusion, the job of a religious movement is very different.  Fear of the sexual other, and a crisis of sexual identity, is a personal and pastoral problem.  It is something which liberal religious ministry can tackle; it is a job which liberal religious leaders throughout the country are probably already doing within their own congregations.  I would also argue that it should be part of the mandate of the Religious Left, to address and mitigate this spiritual crisis outside the boundaries of liberal religious congregations and in society as a whole.  Not only would such a project be a valuable service to society as a whole, it would also redound to the benefit of the progressive movement, as it would undermine the foundation of the Religious Right.

I admit that I don't know much about how the Religious Left would go about addressing this problem outside the boundary of liberal religious congregations.  It's not an easy problem on an individual level, and I can't imagine the project gets easier on a national scale.  But I'd certainly welcome suggestions, and I'm curious to hear what your thoughts are on Haffner and Palmer's thoughts about a theology of sexual justice.

My copy of Dispatches from the Religious Left arrived today and, since the book launch is next week, I thought I'd crack it open and review some of the essays this weekend. The book is divided in three parts: "Envisioning a more politically dynamic Religious Left", "Memos on hot button issues", and "Getting from here to there". So my plan is to review one essay from each chapter over the next few days.

First up is "Religious Left: Changing the Script", by Daniel Schultz, better known to many blog readers as Pastor Dan of Street Prophets.

PastorDan's essay is characteristically blunt and honest. It opens with a none-too-subtle reproach to Religious Leftists: "What the Religious Left is doing is not working!".

The prognosis is that, for a variety of reasons, the Religious Left is not an effective political movement in the way that the Religious Left is. This ineffectiveness stems from a tendency to get mired in small-bore issues and miss the forest for the trees; an eagerness for spiritual development coupled with ambivalence about politics; and the storied theological diversity of a movement which includes some number of Catholics, mainline Protestants, Jews, and Muslims - and many others.

The prescription, according to PastorDan, is to develop and articulate a progressive political theology for the Religious Left. By way of contrast, he refers to Walter Brueggemann's identification of the dominant political theology in a 2005 Christian Century article - "the script of therapeutic, technological, consumerist militarism that permeates every dimension of our common life."

PastorDan echoes Brueggemann's argument that the Religious Left must offer a "counterscript" to this dominant ideology. He doesn't so much spell out what that progressive political theology is, but suggests, in a somewhat roundab
out fashion, a way to get there. The key idea is that the Religious Left should be "questioning assumptions, imagining new possibilities, keeping an eye on the human bottom line of public policy." This process suggests an honest examination of conflicted feelings on issues ranging from sexual diversity to social welfare programs, and to use that examination to probe long-held assumptions more deeply. For example, PastorDan suggests that conflicted feelings about safety in the age of terrorism could lead to an examination of the assumptions embedded in our national security state, and from there to a productive re-imagination of the transformation of that apparatus.

This process is not the stuff of winning electoral politics, exactly, and PastorDan is quick to admit that he is not calling for the development of a robust political machine which can answer the Religious Right, dollar-for-dollar and demagogue-for-demagogue. Indeed, he argues that while the role of the Religious Right has always been to provide clear answers, that of the Religious Left should be to ask questions, to be "astronauts of inner space".

This chapter is rather difficult, both because it's a bit on the abstract side, and because its prescription is challenging. Asking difficult questions, suited though it may be to the Religious Left, is a good way to mint new enemies, and is not a good way to notch up victories. Those who are hoping for a powerful, organized political religious movement that can provide the same kind of volunteer firepower to the Democrats that the Religious Right provides to the Republicans won't get a lot of sympathy from PastorDan. That doesn't mean he's wrong, but it's likely to give a lot of people (myself included) some pause.

To be sure, I don't think we want a Religious Left that is in every way similar to the Religious Right. To begin with, the last thing we need in this country is a second copy of the Religious Right; more to the point, it just won't work. Religious progressives, by an large, will not participate in a movement that works in lockstep with a political party.

At the same time, it seems to me that asking questions is just limiting the Religious Left a bit too much. Perhaps I'm reading too much into the chapter, but it seems to me that PastorDan assumes a dichotomy between asking questions and providing answers, and based on that assumption, imagines that the Religious Left must be a constant long-term thorn in the side of the political system, rather than an agent of potential short-term victories. I think it's a false dichotomy, although I admit that I'm not entirely sure what the mechanics of asking questions while providing answers looks like. To return to the earlier example, it certainly would have been a tall order, in the post-9/11 days, to simultaneously ask difficult questions about our national security apparatus and to illuminate a hopeful path into a safer and more sane world. That's still pretty difficult, seven years after the fact.

In any case, I'm curious to hear what you think - is PastorDan's diagnosis correct? Is asking questions a sufficient role for the Religious Left, or is it too narrow? And if it is too narrow, what's the proper role for the Religious Left?