February 18, 2005: The New Testament for Activists
Last Saturday, (Feb 12th) I read a passage from Salon.com's "War room" that described Howard Dean's difficulty talking "bible" to Southerners. It mentioned that he was once asked which was his favorite book of the New Testament and he answered "Job" (which is Old Testament). This made me think of an e-mail exchange between Mark Phillips and myself as it relates to symbols and to cultural narratives. Dean missed a great opportunity to parse his message in terms that the audience could have more easily understood.
I suggest that the correct answer is Romans. This is not as well known to non-Christian or non-churchgoing people as the more popular books of the New Testament, such as Luke, John, or Matthew. The early chapters make Romans a great choice for progressives to use when conversing with devout Christians. In chapter 1 you find the only passage in the New Testament that expresses a prohibition on homosexuality (a topic dear to certain red state voters' hearts). But chapter 2 is the important one. That's the one that expresses an even more vehement prohibition on mortal people taking the enforcement of God's instructions, or "the law", into their own hands. It's not our role or right to enforce the rules. And those who do are as evil as the ones attacked. This is one of the best ways to associate the bible with progressive ideals.
Many red state voters fear liberals imposing their "agenda" on others. For example, Bill O'Reilly recently stated, "I'm fighting this ferocious battle against people at this juncture who want to change America, all right? They want to change it to de-emphasize religion, they want a country like Sweden where less than ten percent of the population goes to church." O'Reilly does not speak for all Christians (thank God, no pun intended) but this quote provides a good example of the threat many of them perceive. Republican candidates and pundits like O'Reilly capitalize on people's fears as a way to discredit their political opponents. Rather than attack progressive political goals head on (which means railing against schools, health care, food for hungry people, and other services that Christians would likely approve) they instead make us into the boogey-man: here comes the liberal secular-humanist God-haters! A reference to Romans can both uphold the ideal of individual freedom and at the same time send the message: no one is going to impose their own rules -- whether religious or secular -- on anyone else.
What is Romans? The New Testament has numerous authors. One, Paul, wrote the most books of any: thirteen of the books are his letters to specific congregations that address specific issues or questions. Romans deals with issues of law, faith, God and behavior focusing largely on how people should treat each other. Throughout Romans Paul wrote denunciations of sexual depravity and "bodily desires" but the majority of the book deals with God's grace and forgiveness. Well-known, often quoted passages from Romans include "vengeance is mine, says the Lord" (12:19) and "love thy neighbor as thyself" (13:9). Live and let live comes through as a clear directive. A reference to Romans can communicate a reassuring message to a well-meaning red state voter who fears debased liberal types like us: we do not want to change you or force you to live some secular ideal of ours. We only want a better life for more people.
Read for yourself. You can read the bible on the web at the Bible Gateway. This web site lets you read different translations. I suggest the new international version as the most easily readable. Keep in mind that the meaning of words relies heavily on context: during the time Paul wrote his letters Christianity had not yet broken off completely from Judaism, but constituted a Jewish sect. That means, for example, that the word gentiles refers to the pagans and not to Christians as it does today. In communicating with devout Christians, either in person or online, you would do well to let them bring up the bible rather than try to club them over the head with Romans. They read the bible more than we do and many may take offense at an "outsider" or "unbeliever" attempting to teach them their own scripture. Tread carefully. Given that we stand little chance of accomplishing any change without the support of at least some number of people from the so-called "red states" for us to read the bible may prove a necessity. Some (not all) Republican leaders who in reality are robbing and cheating the world have gained public office by speaking to devout Christians "in their language." I suggest we start doing the same.
Steven Dunlap is president of the Bay Area Library and Information Network.
