A Belated Analysis: If One Wishes to Act Self-Righteous, One Ought to Be Right
A month or so ago, I read this opinion piece arguing that liberal Christianity's liberalness explained its relative decline in demographics and influence. That assertion may well be correct. However, the author acts as if the liberal Christianity has given up some moral quality that other branches had not. I figured out the hole in this argument while visiting my grandmother, but didn't write aobut it until now.
The author summarizes her core theme in one sentence in the middle: "Sociologist Rodney Stark ("The Rise of Christianity") and historian Philip Jenkins ("The Next Christendom") contend that the more demands, ethical and doctrinal, that a faith places upon its adherents, the deeper the adherents' commitment to that faith." As a sociological observation, this may be true; however, the moral gloss on it is definitely not. Why? The issues she discusses are most emphatically not about the demands a faith places on its adherents, they are about exclusion: discriminating against homosexuals, preventing women from having religious status, and the like. The major issue she doesn't mention is abortion, and it's about control over women. When a heterosexual male takes up these positions, it costs him nothing: humans who identify as he does will continue to lead and symbolize his religion, he will still be allowed to marry his preferred partner, and he will never have to deal with pregnancy except at most second-hand.
I'm willing to believe that all these values do indeed increase the appeal of conservative Christianity, but let's not decieve ourselves about them: they are, for the most part, about forcing men and women (particularly women) into traditional gender roles and about out-group exclusion to reinforce religious identity. I don't consider these values particularly virtuous, but what do I know?
The author summarizes her core theme in one sentence in the middle: "Sociologist Rodney Stark ("The Rise of Christianity") and historian Philip Jenkins ("The Next Christendom") contend that the more demands, ethical and doctrinal, that a faith places upon its adherents, the deeper the adherents' commitment to that faith." As a sociological observation, this may be true; however, the moral gloss on it is definitely not. Why? The issues she discusses are most emphatically not about the demands a faith places on its adherents, they are about exclusion: discriminating against homosexuals, preventing women from having religious status, and the like. The major issue she doesn't mention is abortion, and it's about control over women. When a heterosexual male takes up these positions, it costs him nothing: humans who identify as he does will continue to lead and symbolize his religion, he will still be allowed to marry his preferred partner, and he will never have to deal with pregnancy except at most second-hand.
I'm willing to believe that all these values do indeed increase the appeal of conservative Christianity, but let's not decieve ourselves about them: they are, for the most part, about forcing men and women (particularly women) into traditional gender roles and about out-group exclusion to reinforce religious identity. I don't consider these values particularly virtuous, but what do I know?