(Westminster John Knox Press,
1997)
A Critique
of the Book’s Treatment of Christian Pro-family Movements
Glenn T. Stanton
Vice-President of Policy and Culture, Palmetto Family Council, South
Carolina
Vanderbilt University Divinity
School
February 27, 1998
In From Culture Wars to Common
Ground, Professor Browning and his fellow authors provide the
student of (as well as the participants in) our nation’s current dialogue
on family and religion a substantial and intelligent resource. This
book is a wonderfully insightful treatment of this subject, which
is too often plagued by intellectual prejudice and ad hominem attack
rather than a mature and careful search for understanding in these
vital issues. As students and participants, we are indebted to each
of you for your important work, which helps elevate this discussion
from the scrappy arena of the "culture wars" to the higher,
more civil arena of thoughtful, productive dialogue. Thank you all
for your vision for the book and the hard work exerted to realize
it.
Let me also say, personally, that your treatment
of the Christian pro-family movements, while not without minor shortcomings,
is among the most objective and informed I have seen.
I will confine my comments mainly to chapter
8 "Christian Pro-family Movements: The Black Church, Roman Catholics
and the Christian Right." I will address three main issues:
Understanding these three communities (the
Black Church, the Catholic Church, and the Christian Right) as distinct
and similar sociological units and seeking a more descriptive
definition;
The "soft patriarchy" of Evangelicalism
and;
The public philosophy of what the book calls
that "Christian Right."
The first point serves to expand, and hopefully
enhance, the discussion on the different groups making up the Christian
pro-family movements. The second is a correction of something the
authors misunderstand. The third is an elaboration on something into
which the authors show keen insight.
The Communities of the Christian Pro-family
Movement
First, as I address the sociological nature
of the religious family debate, I should explain my standing sociologically.
I am both a student of this debate by personal curiosity and an active
participant by vocation and conviction. I am also a practicing Evangelical
and offer my critique from the perspective of that life experience.
While the Black Church, Roman Catholics and
Christian Right do involve themselves in the "family values"
debate, they do not participate in that debate as three individual,
socio-religious silos, existing and acting independent of one another.
In fact, depending on unit of measure, there are characteristics that
cause each of these communities to overlap, becoming almost indistinguishable
from each other. The authors correctly recognize that many feel uncomfortable
with the phrase "Christian Right" and define it as a group
of "Christians whose thinking is to the right of center in the
American family debate."
A more substantive definition is needed. Certainly
a significant number of members and leaders in the Black and Roman
Catholic Churches have Christian beliefs that are right of center
in the American family debate. Examining the major family debates
currently being heard, such as same-sex marriage and adoption, abortion,
sex-education, the importance of two biological or adoptive parents
for proper child development, etc., we find a chorus of thoughtful
conservative voices from both the Black and Catholic Churches speaking
from the right of center in the American family debate. Are all of
these contributors a part of the "Christian Right"? Some
may be and others may not. We must realize there is something more
than a particular standing point on the political spectrum that identifies
one as a part of the "Christian Right."
We should be clear. Many are uncomfortable
with the term "Christian Right" because it carries a wealth
of loaded baggage. In the popular conscience, it typically and incorrectly
refers to Christians who are fundamentalist (either Catholic or Protestant)
in their theological epistemology, impositional in their public philosophy
and mildly intolerant and unreflective in their personal disposition.
To be sure, this is certainly not the picture our authors under discussion
paint, but the image is popularly held in the mainstream and academic
press. Therefore, this term should either be avoided or more carefully
defined.
The "Christian Right" as a label
transcends sociological boundaries and includes members of various
religious traditions. While it is not heterogenic, white Evangelicals
do make up a significant part of the Christian Right body and its
leadership. However, many Evangelicals will be quick to remind us
that not all Evangelicals are members of the Christian Right, just
as, not all members of the Christian Right are Evangelicals. This
phenomenon we call the "Christian Right" serves as a melting
pot for socially conservative people of faith, be they Whites, African-Americans,
Catholics, Evangelicals and even mainline Protestants and Jews who
are concerned about the direction the family in America is taking
and are working, at many levels, to preserve this important institution
with conservative, political and cultural prescriptions.
To further our understanding, we must also
recognize the generational differences in the Christian Right, for
these greatly impact how participants approach their efforts toward
cultural and political reformation. The generational perspective is
important. Young and old alike in the Christian Right share similar
convictions about the nature of family, society and public life, but
their motivations are different and this affects the way they approach
their work. Many of those older than 50 years of age in the Christian
Right have a deep appreciation for the way things were before the
tumultuous events of the 1960s in America. They would like to rediscover
those times when right and wrong were clear, God was a relevant part
of life, the family unit was strong and the marital commitment was
honored more than it is today. In short, they remember back and desire.
They seek to preserve what remains.
Many of the leaders in the Christian Right
younger than 40 do not have the personal experience with and fondness
for the pre-sixties family experience. Therefore, they do not find
their motivation in an historical reference point, but in an ideal
of what ought to be based on religious conviction and empiricism:
experiencing personally or by observation the proliferation of broken
homes. In short, they look forward and imagine. They seek to build
what ought to be.
These two approaches largely drive the way
they undertake their work. Plainly put, people seeking to build something
imagined, but never possessed, act and work differently than those
seeking to recover something once held, but now lost. This can tend
to create a measure of tension between young and old leader. But such
tension stemming from different motivations and approaches is inevitable
in a movement with a 20 year history and must be worked through.
The Soft Patriarchy of Evangelicalism
"First and foremost" is how the authors
describe the Christian Right’s problem of "defining male authority
and responsibility in postmodern society." Dr. James Dobson’s
Focus on the Family and Coach Bill McCartney’s Promise Keepers are
presented as leaders in addressing this issue for the Christian Right.
While this is true, these organizations can be more widely characterized
as addressing them for the majority of Evangelicals. It is charged
by the authors that the Christian Right, through the major voices
of Focus on the Family and Promise Keepers lack an understanding "of
love as equal regard [and] lapse easily into soft patriarchy…"
Equal regard is defined by the authors as "a relationship between
husband and wife characterized by mutual respect, affection, practical
assistance and justice- a relationship that values and aids the self
and other with equal seriousness."
The authors also charge that Dobson, in his
books and radio broadcasts and McCartney, through his large stadium
events "will [not] baldly assert that women should not work outside
the home or take part in public life. It is clear, however, that they
value and idealize women as mothers at home." Curiously, with
such a large text to draw from in Dobson’s many books and years of
broadcasts and McCartney’s books and multiple events, the authors
offer no actual cases where Dobson or McCartney hint that women should
not work, but are rather valued primarily as mothers. In addition,
they offer very little of substance in support of the "soft-patriarchy"
charge.
In response, let me say that, as an employee
at Focus on the Family for five years, women do work at Focus on the
Family. They work in entry level jobs as well as the highest levels
of the organization. Most of them have husbands and families. In addition,
they are valued as women and faithful, hardworking, talented employees.
Shirley Dobson, Dr. Dobson’s wife, works full-time running Focus on
the Family and other ministries and Danae Dobson, his daughter, has
a successful career writing children’s books. I have no personal experience
with Promise Keepers from which to speak.
Focus does believe however, that while there
are children in the home, and the family budget allows, it is best
for at least one parent to be home with the children as much as possible.
Ideally, children need to be raised by their parents, rather than
an auxiliary child-care provider. The work lives of both mother and
father should be situated, as reasonably as possible, so that at least
one parent is home with the child as much as possible. Beyond this,
Focus on the Family says very little about the configuration and division
of labor between mother and father, but rather leaves that decision
for families to make for themselves. While there is interesting debate
between Focus and some constituents on various issues, this does not
constitute one of them. The overwhelming majority of Focus on the
Family constituents agree with this basic premise and work out the
particulars according to their own realities, convictions, and preferences.
Interestingly, Focus has featured stay-at-home
dads in stories about how different families are making postmodern
life work for them. Likewise, some employee families at Focus operate
under this arrangement where the wife works full-time and the father
is the primary care-provider for the children. Of course, they do
this with no disapproval from Dr. Dobson or the organization.
However, Focus on the Family does get a significant
body of mail from women who want ideas on how to stay home with children
and still contribute to the family budget, not out of desire for creative
or intellectual fulfillment, but out of economic necessity. Likewise,
in my personal circle of evangelical friends in three different states,
my wife and I know of no mother who is now at home caring for children,
but wishes she had a career outside of the home. Conversely, we know
of many women currently working outside of the home who wish they
could afford to stay home with their children. Therefore a marriage
of equal regard cannot be measured by how many women work outside
the home or even how often they are encouraged to do so. It is measured
in how couples relate to one another in making personal decisions
that are best for each other and the family.
Regarding the marriage relationship between
husband and wife, I see great equality in evangelical ranks and little
cause for alarm. These marriages come very close to the authors’ ideal
of equal regard as defined here, with the exception of one point.
Evangelicals emphasize and seek to practice mutual respect, affection,
practical assistance and justice in their marriages. They do not so
much emphasize the valuing and aiding of the self, but rather denying
the self and serving the other unconditionally. It is not that the
self is insignificant, but rather the human tendency, living in the
shadow of the historic Fall, is to focus on our selves. This does
not need encouragement, but seeking to fulfill the needs of the other
self does because it runs contrary to our natural will. Self-fulfillment
is indeed there in good marriages, but as Jim Turner, the husband
in the Evangelical case-study family, explains, "it is more of
a by-product" rather than a goal actively sought.
I would contend that Evangelicals adopt an
interesting equal regard/sacrificial agapic hybrid. The husband is
to show affection, respect, practical assistance and justice, be he
is also called to be the chief servant of his household, as Christ,
our model, is to the Church (Ephesians 5:23). This is no mean calling!
For in imitating the example of Christ, the husband is called to do
this independent of how his wife responds to him. For, Christ came
and gave Himself as Savior independent of our regard for Him (Romans
5:7-8). So there is an emphasis on tender sacrifice and the husband
carries the larger part of that responsibility. As a husband, I see
the implications of this idea as absolutely revolutionary and I seek
to practice it in my marriage. What a wonderful difference it would
make in our families if more husbands sought to conduct themselves
according this ideal? What if many of our patriarchal fathers had
tried it?
Focus on the Family and Promise Keepers have
done more than any other, in or outside of Evangelicalism, to encourage
this equal-regard/sacrificial-agapic hybrid. They have genuinely improved
the situation and not aggravated it. As a young evangelical, observing
my own marriage and those of the people I work and go to church with,
I find these marriages are very similar to the one represented in
Jim and Sophie Turner. Like the Turners, decisions are not made arbitrarily
by the man, but husband and wife make them together. When the husband
or wife do act arbitrarily and unjustly, they are typically called
to account, informally by their close friends of faith from Sunday
School, small group studies, or accountability groups initiated as
follow-up from Promise Keeper events. I have witnessed this myself
among my peer group.
The one substantive example the authors give
as an example of soft-patriarchy in evangelicalism is a selection
of comments by Tony Evans. His comments deserve some explanation and
further understanding. Tony Evans is a popular Promise Keepers speaker
and the pastor of a mega-African-American church in Dallas, Texas.
He is a very energetic and charismatic preacher/motivator regularly
using imaginative language and illustration. He is not a careful crafter
of a theology or psychology of husband/wife relationships. He is also
accustomed to speaking to his ethnic community, which has been plagued
by father and husband absence for several decades, as Patrick Moynihan
warned early in his report on the black family. Evans is making his
case for men who have completely abdicated their familial and marital
responsibilities, encouraging them to exhibit a seriousness and decisiveness
about reinserting themselves into family life again. The emphasis
is not on developing a heavy hand of patriarchy, but on showing definitive
repentance for past negligence. To be sure, the monological character
of the narrative is there, as the authors lament. But it exists for
effect, and not necessarily as a technical explanation of how the
family restoration and reformation should manifest itself. Examples
of monological dialogue, which the authors are right to bring attention
to, should be drawn from more substantive sources, which unfortunately
exist in many different socio-religious groups.
The Public Philosophy of the "Christian
Right"
The authors are right to bring attention to
the public philosophy of the Christian Right, for this is an important
characteristic for any group in the family debate, especially in this
instance. For such a vibrant and influential movement, it is surprising
that it effectively has no public philosophy. At least they do not
have one that is intentional and articulated. Their public philosophy
is, at best, a collage of various and sundry ideas drawn from the
Bible, the Founding Fathers, and the Catholic Church; a confusion
the authors correctly illustrate. There is very little from the Church
Fathers or more contemporary theologians or philosophers. The movement
has been limited by this shortcoming and there is a great need here
for more work by the Christian Right. Certainly, there are those who
are Christian, conservative, politically and/or culturally engaged,
concerned about the family, and have an intelligently defined public
philosophy; however, these people are not typically included as members
or leaders of the Christian Right. This is not true of the leaders
mentioned by the authors in chapter 8.
The authors are also right to draw attention
to the Dutch theologian and statesman Abraham Kuyper (1837-1920) as
a notable model for a public philosophy. His system of thought is
valuable and intelligent, but, I regret, poorly understood or appreciated
by the Christian Right, including "the state organizations loosely
affiliated with Focus on the Family," as reported.
Kuyper was a leader of the Dutch Calvinists
in the areas of education, politics, journalism, and the church. At
the age of 26, he completed his doctoral work in theology at the University
of Leiden and immediately entered the pastorate. His life’s work included
serving as a key founder of The Free University of Amsterdam, as well
as the Anti-Revolutionary Party, the editor of two major newspapers,
simultaneously, and holding a seat in the lower house of the Dutch
Parliament. He eventually became Prime Minister of the Netherlands
in a Calvinist-Catholic coalition government. In 1898, he visited
the United States and delivered the Stone Lectures at Princeton Theological
Seminary and received an honorary doctorate.
Two main concepts in Kuyper’s public philosophy
are what he describes as "God’s Ordinances" and "sphere-sovereignty"
– each having its foundation in a particular understanding of reality
as a created order. His idea of "God’s Ordinances" contends
that the true law of life, which includes every aspect of life,
comes from outside the human will and intellect. These find their
beginning and source in the sovereign, personal God. These ordinances
are more than directives of how the church should conduct herself
or how her people should arrange their own moral lives. They speak
to all areas of life, including politics, industry, art, the sciences,
etc. God, through His ordinances, has something to say about every
area of life, for it is all created by Him, pleasing to Him and under
His Lordship. They are "God’s ever present requirements for all
human beings in the totality of their lives." These ordinances
speak, not in dogmatic chapter and verse necessarily, but by the revealed
Word of God and the principles rooted in the creation order. And it
is not, according to Kuyper, the churches’ nor the government’s duty
to direct these areas of life. Each sphere of life has its own sovereignty
under God.
This brings us to Kuyper’s second point: "sphere
sovereignty." This concept was given in a speech at the opening
of the Free University of Amsterdam in 1880. The university is free,
Kuyper claimed, because God’s ordinances for the university are specific
to the university and come from God. Therefore, the university is
free, under God, from the dictates of the church, the state, or industry,
to pursue the task of exploring and developing the life of the mind.
This applies to each of the other spheres of human culture as well.
God has specific norms, or ordinances, for governing, art, ecclesiology,
biology, business, etc. and these spheres, under the authority of
God, are sovereign within the bounds of that realm and should not
dictate to the others how they should conduct their work. This is
because the spheres themselves, as stewards of these talents and knowledge,
are able to understand God’s ordinances for that discipline better
than those outside the discipline.
This concept of sphere sovereignty differs
from the idea of subsidiarity, because it envisions a more horizontal
relationship where all are equal under the authority of God. The more
vertical configuration of subsidiarity places the state in a superior
position to the other parts. Sphere sovereignty should be understood
like cogwheels, being independent units, but collectively and harmoniously
working together and equally for the social process, rather than hierarchical
steps where all are either superior or inferior to each other. Nor
are these spheres completely autonomous. These spheres are,
at all times, either displaying obedience or disobedience to the divine
ordinances and they do so to either the benefit or peril of the social
order. What if a sphere is disobedient to the ordinances? Kuyper explains,
All these spheres interlock like cogwheels,
and precisely in acting upon one another and in meshing with one another,
they produce the rich, multifaceted variety of human society. But
this also brings the danger that one sphere in life may break in upon
another like a jerky cogwheel that shears off one cog after another
until the operation of the entire machine is disrupted. This danger
constitutes the rationale for still another sphere of authority, that
of the state. The state must make it possible for the various spheres,
in so far as they manifest themselves externally, to interact appropriately,
and to keep each sphere within its proper limits… The state is a sovereign
power…which protects the individual from the tyranny of his own group.
It has no authority, however, within each of these spheres. Internally,
each sphere is ruled by another authority that descends directly from
God, apart from the state.
Another thinker who should be recognized in
an understanding of the Christian Right and its public philosophy
is Francis Schaeffer (1912-1984). His influence is paramount, but
also poorly recognized or understood. Many leaders of the Christian
Right (past and present) - Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Jack Kemp,
James Dobson, Cal Thomas, Tim Lahaye, John Whitehead, Randall Terry
among many others - credit Schaeffer with helping them understand
that their Christian faith applied to more than merely their church
duties. Christianity applies to all areas of life and is equally relevant
to the totality of these areas.
Schaeffer was a pastor and evangelist, but
his influence came in his role as a philosopher and apologist. He
was of a reformed Presbyterian tradition and was significantly influenced
by Kuyper. Although Schaeffer seldom mentioned Kuyper in his books
or lectures, the influence is evident and Schaeffer was the primary
popularizer of his "ordinances" theory. He helped Christians
understand that the Bible has something to say about all areas of
life and that what it says is foundational. There is a Christian way
of thinking about movies, literature, philosophy, theology, politics,
economics, and science. This way is more than thinking morally or
pietistically. It is an understanding that there is a created order
and as part of the created order, all of these diverse aspects of
human culture have a continuity and direction to them that can be
known and can direct our participation in these disciplines. Any substantive
discussion of the Christian Right must include an understanding of
Francis Schaeffer and his work.
Conclusion
All in all, the authors’ discussion of the
Christian pro-family movements is highly insightful and responsibly
done. The authors have done the student of and participant in the
family debate a great service by elevating this important discussion
to a more informed level. The introduction of the book performs its
task well, informing him of and preparing him for the substantive
presentation that follows. The history and evolution of family and
the pro-family debate is valuable, as is the discussion at the end
of the book on a theology of the family, a work that is desperately
needed. This book certainly will help the family debate move from
the "culture wars" to common ground. Again, I offer my sincere
thanks to the team for their vision and hard work for this valuable
volume.