This entire discussion is a wonderful example of two things: Why I blog, and the interconnectedness of different ideas. Again, I can't thank Democarcy Lover enough for continuing to respond. This is the kind of thing I love.
The public face of Christianity in America, for a generation now, has been a combination of Billy Graham's evangelical Baptist fervor and the various political preachers, of whom James Dobson (around since the beginning, but little noticed) is the latest entrant. The problem with this parade of media stars is that they are too often taken at their word to be spokesmen for Christianity in America. In his comments on my last post on this topic, Democracy Lover asked what a non-Christian is to make of the distinctino I wish to draw between these media darlings and the reality of multiple denominations with a variety of differences and legal structures, etc. The simplest response is this: exercise a little skepticism and do a little research. We are prone to question what the media present to us in areas where we each have a bit of understanding; why not be skeptical when Dobson is called a "Christian leader"? The internet is a wonderful thing, and anyone can access the websites of a variety of denominations, find out what they believe, what they practice, who speaks for them, how they operate, etc. The difference between the media appearance and reality is so wide, one wonders how we lived with the fiction for so long.
As for the idea that secular America has no "leader" (apparently unlike the various Protestant Christians who all believe what Jerry Falwell believes), that is true. Yet to say that there is no cohesion or coherence in American ideology is simply wrong. Our political and social consensus, one could even argue conformity, is so clear - from musical choices to what stores we shop at and why to the need to prop up our shaky capitalist economy to what movie to watch - it hardly needs explicating. As these are generalities, or expressions of generalities, there need be no spokesperson, as it were. There are enough persons who accept certain ideas and practices, while never doubting the reality which is much more diverse and diffuse, that to address these notions with counter-claims from a Churhc perspective is all too easy.
A good example is consumerism. We are no longer citizens. We are consumers. Our existence, whether political, educational, or social, has been reduced to its barest economic reality. We no longer think or vote or learn - we consume what is given us. I keep picturing baby birds, their mouths open, their cries deafening, and the mother regurtitating down their throats. This is how Americans are viewed, and how much of both the media and its corporate sponsors wish us to perceive ourselves. This is how we are addressed - as children who need to be led to feed on whatever is vomited at us. A failure to act as a good consumer is to fail to act as a good American.
This is such utter nonsense - the idea that we individuals acting in our own self-interest are the real engines powering the great economic ship of state - one wonders how anyone can believe it. Yet, this is what we are not only told; it is practically screamed at us from a variety of sources. Our political debate, our social discourse, even our economic thinking, is debased by such ideas. Our personal lives, our social existence, our spiritual lives existing only as a function of what we purchase demeans us, dehuamnizes us, and leaves us defenseless in the face of the onslaught of corporate rapacity. One need not even be a Christian to find the flaws in consumerism!
As to the disturbances in some mainline denominations over gays and lesbians within their ranks, I can only speak for the denomination to which I belong (the United Methodist Church) and say that much of the debate in the past fifteen years has been over ordination. It has been settled for some time that there cannot be discrimination in membership based on sexual orientation (although a recent Judicial Council ruling argues otherwise; it is being reconsidered, however, because the basis of the decision throws our entire connection - our legal structure - into question). The debate is on-going, but our current practice - we do not ordain "self-avowed, practicing homosexuals" - has been interpreted in such a way that a both parts of the modifier must exist in order for legal action to be taken within the Church for the removal of orders. While it does not satisfy everyone (what compromise ever does?) it certainly has allowed people to answer their call and live their lives under a certain disciplpine and with integrity.
Our social discourse is injured by a media too ignorant and lazy to actually do the work of learning about a topic before reporting on it. Complexity does not sell papers or work well in limited air-time. The reliance upon a corporate-controlled, herd-minded media creates too many false impressions, and too much misinformation for a healthy society. I am increasingly impressed with the way the internet actually helps us move things forward. This is where America comes to talk, listen, learn, and most of all - to think. We speak for ourselves!
Virtual Tin Cup
